Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
1987). Also see In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705,
706 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 1032, 168
USPQ 530, 534 (CCPA 1971); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152
USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136
USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Hence, the issue before us is whether the structure of
Conforti is capable of performing the function as recited in
appellant’s claims 1, 2, and 5.
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Figure 2A of Conforti shows
member 1 (which the examiners equates with appellant’s elongated
member of component a) of claim 1) having multiple cleats 2. The
issue is whether this configuration is capable of transversely
contacting support wires of a wire rack, and whether the cleats
can fit into rectangular openings of a wire rack and are
extendable downward within the rectangular opening. We agree
with the examiner that it is capable of such function. Appellant
has not provided arguments convincing us otherwise.
We regard to claim 5, claim 5 recites that the cleat must
be capable of frictionally engaging the support wires. We also
agree with the examiner that the configuration set forth in
Conforti is capable of such a function. Appellant has not
provided arguments convincing us otherwise.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 as being anticipated
by Conforti.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 6, 8, and 11 as being obvious
over Conforti in view of Biggs
We consider claims 6, 8, and 11 in this rejection. Claim 6
recites that the elongated member is formed of at least two
slats. Claim 8 recites that the slats are in substantial contact
with each other. Claim 11 recites that the cleat is made of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007