Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
(f) claim 13 over Cooper in view of Sonner and Leamon, Jr.; and
(g) claims 11 and 16 over Cooper in view of Sonner and Dale.
Appellant does not set forth separate substantive arguments against
the separately rejected groups of claims denoted (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g),
above. Appellant relies solely upon the asserted misinterpretation of Cooper
by the Examiner. Accordingly, concerning the § 103 rejections, we will
limit our consideration to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 12, 18, and
19 over Cooper in view of Sonner, which claims stand or fall together as a
group.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are convinced that the Examiner’s rejections are
supported by the prior art evidence relied upon and in accord with current
patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections
for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 12 over
Ferrara. We agree with the Examiner that Ferrara describes the claimed
subject matter within the meaning of § 102 by disclosing a breathable
storage rack 10 comprising a frame member pivotably secured to the side of
a generally vertical surface, wherein the cover is made of a breathable netted
material, like Appellant’s cover (see col. 2, ll. 28-33). We also agree with
the Examiner that there is an enclosed space between elements 16 and 24 in
which an object, such as mail, may be stored when the frame is in a closed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013