Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9-11 as being
obvious over Conforti in view of Storti
We consider claim 9 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 4 of the Office action of March 7, 2003. The examiner
relies upon Conforti for disclosing all the elements of the
claims except with regard to the components being comprised of
either an insect repellant material, an air freshening material,
or cedar wood. The examiner relies upon Storti for teaching
cedar wood is aromatic and is also known to repel moths and
silver fish. The examiner concludes therefore it would have been
obvious to have made the flat elongated member of Conforti of
cedar wood.
On page 30 of the brief, appellant simply repeats similar
arguments that neither Storti or Biggs or Conforti alone or in
combination, mention wire racks or the use of an elongated member
combined with a cleat, in a fashion as to form a shelf unit. For
the reasons discussed supra, we are not convinced by this line of
argument.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 9-11 as being obvious over Conforti in
view of Storti.
V. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection of claims 1-12 is reversed.
Each of the prior art rejections is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007