Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
position. Clearly, mail meets the claimed requirement of “an object” which
may be stored.
Appellant maintains that “[t]he Mail Receptacle [of Ferrara], as is
clear from the drawing and description, is not intended for similar purposes
as Applicant’s invention” (principal Br. 10, second para.). However,
Appellant’s intended purpose is of no moment with respect to the
patentability of the claimed breathable storage rack. Claim 12 on appeal
defines no structure that is distinct from the structure described by Ferrara.
While Appellant submits that “there is no indication that the cloth [of
Ferrara] is breathable” (id.), Appellant has not explained how the netted
cover of Ferrara is any less breathable than the claimed cover which,
according to the Specification, may also be netted. Also, although Appellant
makes the argument that “the Mail Receptacle [of Ferrara] is used to receive
objects only in the open position and the objects (mail) are removed before
the receptacle is closed” (id.), we fail to see how such function of Ferrara
lends the claimed structure distinct from the Ferrara structure.
We next consider the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 over Cooper.
We concur with the Examiner that Cooper describes a rack system, like
Appellant’s, for mounting on a generally planar surface and being adapted
for storing bulky items which benefit from ventilation during storage
comprising all the claimed elements. We do not subscribe to Appellant’s
argument that Cooper does not describe a “rack system” because “[i]t does
not support or hang, as required by the concept of a ‘rack’” (principal Br. 10,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013