Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 8
through column 3, line 50 and column 4, line 11 through column 5,
line 50 of Coglin.
Consequently, we agree with the examiner’s determination
that representative claims 1 and 21 are prima facie anticipated
by Coglin, and with the examiner’s view that the arguments
furnished in the briefs do not persuasively refute that
determination of the examiner.
Regarding claim 23, appellant again argues that the asserted
flat shelves of Coglin do not meet the wine cradle requirement of
claim 23. However, for reasons discussed above, we disagree with
appellant’s viewpoint because claim 23 is not so limited as to
exclude a shelf structure as disclosed in Coglin based on the
wine cradle language.
It follows that we will affirm the examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection on this record.
§ 103(a) Rejection
Concerning the examiner’s obviousness rejection over
Coglin in view of Borgen, we select claim 28 as the
representative claim. See footnote 1 above. Representative
claim 28 is drawn to a method that requires the step of storing a
bottle in a bottle rack with the long axis [of the bottle]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007