Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 5
833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case before
us, the examiner has determined that Coglin discloses, either
expressly or inherently, a storage space meeting every limitation
of the invention set forth in representative claims 1 and 21, and
separately argued claim 23.
Starting with representative claim 1, appellant argues that
the wine rack and wine cradle features of representative claim 1
are not met by the wall mounted cabinet disclosed by Coglin. We
disagree with that argument because representative claim 1 is not
limited to any particular wine rack configuration or wine cradle
configuration that structurally distinguishes representative
claim 1 from the wall mounted storage cabinet, including shelves,
as shown and described in Coglin. In this regard, we note that
representative claim 1 does not require that the wine rack or
wine cradle be configured to hold any particularly sized bottle
or to be shaped in any particular fashion that distinguishes over
the shelf-containing storage cabinet of Coglin. Indeed, at page
4, lines 29-31 of appellant’s specification, it is made clear
that appellant does not limit the terms “wine rack” and “wine
cradle” as requiring any particular type of rack or cradle so
long as the configuration selected allows for storage of a bottle
(of no particularly specified size) thereon in a position such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007