Appeal No. 2004-2214
Application No. 10/068,983 Page 10
Appellant’s arguments regarding a lack of a description of
the claimed method in either Coglin or Borgen is noted. However,
a finding of anticipation is not required for sustaining the
examiner’s obviousness rejection. Here, based on the facts of
record discussed above, there is ample motivation for one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the shelves of the storage
cabinet of Coglin for supporting a bottle with the long axis
thereof in a horizontal position thereon. As such, we will
sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9, 16,
20-23, 25, 26, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Coglin and to reject claims 8, 14, 15 and 28-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coglin in
view of Borgen is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007