Appeal No. 2005-1768
Application No. 09/796,754
ourselves in agreement with appellant that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed by
appellant.
The examiner acknowledges that Nock fails to disclose or
teach a mechanism that allows the rear end of the drawer frame to
move in a vertical direction for providing a change in the angle
of inclination of the drawer frame relative to the rail. Indeed,
as stressed by appellant, Nock teaches that the drawer frame is
adjusted to prevent any lifting of the frame from the carrying
plates such that the frame cannot be lifted from the rear
carrying plates because of the shape of the two catch hooks 19.
Hence, we concur with appellant that Nock teaches away from
modifying the drawer frame in any way that allows it to be moved
in the vertical direction. While the examiner cites
Lautenschläger as evidence that it was known in the art to employ
the use of apertures and screws to provide adjustability between
adjacently secured members in a drawer guide assembly, the
examiner's rationale amounts to nothing more than what could be
accomplished by one of ordinary skill in the art if so inclined
with the proper motivation. However, what could have been done
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007