Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
4. Are claims 18, 21 and 30-34 unpatentable under § 103 over
Slipp in view of Fox?
a. claims 18 and 21
Independent claims 2 and 18 have been reproduced above and differ
by a single limitation. Specifically, claim 2 requires the pegs to be mounted
to the tray so that no standing water may collect at a point where the peg is
mounted, while claim 18 requires "a cutout area on a side of said apparatus
for facilitating lifting of said apparatus by a user."
i. Slipp and Fox
We have found that claim 2 is anticipated by Slipp (§ C.1.c.(i)).
Fox describes a bottle drying rack comprising a cutout area on a side
defining draining areas and support feet (col. 3, ll. 36-51; Fig. 3).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to combine the teachings of Slipp with the cutout of Fox "for the
purpose of providing a lifting an article" (Answer, 11).
ii. Appellants' position
Appellants argue that the prior art fails to address two limitations
asserted to be lacking in Slipp, i.e., that "said entire peg is positioned
adjacent to said upper face for storage and packaging of said apparatus" and
"frictional means connected to said pegs for frictionally engaging said upper
portion of said tray when said pegs are moved between said first storage
position and said second operative position" as recited in claim 22 (Br., 53-
56). Appellants contend that Fox fails to remedy this alleged deficiency in
Slipp (Br., 54-56).
32
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013