Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
8. The shelf unit according to claim 6, wherein said slats
are in substantial contact with each other.
9. The shelf unit according to claim 1 wherein at least a
portion of one of a) said flat elongated member and b) said cleat
comprise an insect repellant material.
11. The shelf unit according to claim 1 wherein at least a
portion of one of a) said flat elongated member and b) said cleat
comprise cedar wood.
The examiner relies upon by the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Biggs et al. (Biggs) 4,567,701 Feb. 4, 1986
Storti 4,768,686 Sep. 6, 1988
Conforti 5,282,595 Feb. 1, 1994
On page 5 of the brief, appellant indicates that the claims
do not stand or fall together. Appellant groups the claims
according to the respective rejection. Our consideration of a
particular claim is made evident in the respective Sections,
infra. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d
1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness).
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Conforti.
Claims 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Conforti in view of Biggs.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Conforti in view of Storti.
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record. This
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007