Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
cedar wood.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-4 of the Office action mailed March 7, 2003, which we
incorporate as our own.
Appellant’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 22-28 of the brief. Appellant again argues that his
shelving unit is for use with a wire rack. It is true that the
claimed shelf unit is for use with a wire rack, but the issue is
whether the structure of Conforti is capable of performing the
recited function. As discussed above, the structure of Conforti
is so capable.
The examiner relies upon Biggs for teaching use of a
plurality of cedar wood slats, in contact with each other. March
7, 2003 Office Action, pages 3-4.
On page 23 of the brief, appellant argues that Biggs
provides no teaching of the use of contacting members as a shelf
unit. We are unpersuaded by this argument because Biggs teaches
the making of a prefabricated panel and Conforti teaches the
specific use of a similar panel for a shelving system.
Appellant also argues that Biggs does not use vertical wall
panels as a horizontal shelf unit that is capable of intermeshing
with a wire rack. We are not convinced by this line of argument
and refer to our discussion regarding Conforti in this regard,
supra.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 6, 8, and 11 as being obvious over
Conforti in view of Biggs.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007