Appeal No. 2006-0813
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,235
and would have been obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use partitions when the drawers do not extend the full width of the cabinet.
With respect to removable petitions, McLaughlin teaches the use of removable
partitions to reconfigure the storage compartments within the drawers. One having
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that removable partitions would be a
convenient way of providing user configurable storage space. In light of the teachings that
the number and size of cabinet drawers may be configured to meet the needs of the user
(McLaughlin, col. 5, l. 62 - col. 6, l. 2; Roberts, col. 5, ll. 5-14. ) one having ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the use of removable partitions between drawers would
facilitate reconfiguring the drawers in light of user needs. The motivation to use a
removable partition to accommodate drawers of different sizes comes from the general
desire to meet the customization needs of the user. The use of removable partitions to
allow customization of the number and size of the drawers, including the use of larger
drawer to occupy the same of two or more smaller drawers, would have been obvious.
Each of the references shows the use of a single drawer that appears to occupy the same
amount of space as two smaller drawers. McLaughlin, Figure 1; Marder, Figure 1 and col.
2, ll. 55-61; Roberts, Figure 1. The design choice of using a single larger drawer rather
than two or more smaller drawers is an ability within the ordinary skill of the art. The
subject matter of Claim 17 would have been obvious.
Appellant also argues that even if the references are combined, they do not teach
the claimed invention in that none of the references teach a removable partition between
drawers. In other words, appellant argues that the combined teachings of the references do
not constitute a “multi-reference anticipation” of the reference. By “multi-reference
anticipation” we mean a combination of references expressly teaching every claim
limitation.
The statutory standard of § 103(a) precludes a patent where the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior invention would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. That person is hypothetical and is presumed to have
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007