Appeal 2006-3342
Application 10/195,217
1 according to known methods to achieve a predictable result. We note that
2 the Appellants admit that molded vertical walls are known (Specification 1).
3 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 13, 19 and 21
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As stated above, we are not persuaded by the
5 Appellants’ arguments that Mahone does not disclose a molded rear wall.
6 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 21
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo because Di
8 Girolamo does not disclose a shelf adapted to be mounted within a
9 refrigerator.
10 In summary:
11 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15
12 to 17, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Mahone.
13 We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 under 35
14 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fish in view of Mahone.
15 We will further sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 13, 19,
16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mahone.
17 We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-17, 22 and
18 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Di Girolamo or the rejection
19 of claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
20 DiGirolamo.
21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
22 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
23 AFFIRMED-IN-PART
24
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013