Ex Parte Conroy - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-2214                                                        
          Application No. 10/068,983                                 Page 2           

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a bottle storage rack and a           
          method of storage.  An understanding of the invention can be                
          derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced            
          below.                                                                      
                    1. A storage space comprising:                                    
                    a wine rack configured to be at least partially                   
               recessed in a wall and including a wine cradle                         
               configured to store a wine bottle with a stopper in                    
               contact with a stored wine.                                            
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Coglin                   5,707,125                Jan. 13, 1998             
          Borgen                   6,361,129                Mar. 26, 2002             
                                                  (filed May 19, 2000)                
               Claims 1-7, 9, 16, 20-23, 25, 26, 31 and 32 stand rejected             
          under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Coglin.  Claims            
          8, 14, 15 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as              
          being unpatentable over Coglin in view of Borgen.                           
               We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for            
          a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by               
          appellant and the examiner concerning the issues before us on               
          this appeal.                                                                







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007