Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 17
Application No. 10/051,573
U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (holding that to select a known compound to meet
known requirements is not a patentable invention).
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 because the Examiner has
not shown where Robertson discloses that the support spar is curved such that the
center of the support spar is higher than its first and second ends. The examiner
points to Figures 1 and 2 of Robertson for support for his position, but we fail to
see where a “curved” support spar is shown in these figures. Thus, even if the
teachings of Whiten and Robertson are combined, the combination fails to show all
of the limitations of claim 6.
We also reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20, which depend
from claims 9 and 16, respectively, and which recite that the system further
comprises a spacer sleeve that is sized to be received over the support spar and that
extends between the first device and a side of the device opening and holds the first
device against the other side of the device opening. The examiner relied on
Robertson for the teaching of a support spar (46, 48) having a spacer sleeve (52)
that is sized to fit over the center of the support spar (48). Although we agree with
the examiner that Robertson teaches a spacer sleeve that is sized to be received
over a support spar, the examiner fails to explain where Robertson teaches using
the spacer sleeve between a first device and a side of the device opening to hold
the first device against the other side of the device opening, as recited in the
claims.
Robertson teaches a merchandising device having display units as shown in
partial view in Figure 1. The display units include tracks (88, 90) and support
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007