Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
from, a vertical surface. The intended use of the enclosure by Cooper is
irrelevant to the described structure. We also agree with the Examiner that
the “breathable flexible cover member 50, 55b, 55d [of Cooper] does abut
against (make contact) and support (maintain item’s resting position) the
bike to retain the bike within the enclosing volume when in closed position”
(Answer, sentence bridging 13 and 14). Clearly, the larger the object
enclosed by Cooper’s device the more the object would abut the cover and
be supported thereby.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 7, 12, 18,
and 19 over Cooper in view of Sonner. We agree with the Examiner that the
claim language “for use in storing helmets against the side of a generally
vertical mounting surface . . .” is simply a statement of intended use that
does not further define the structure of the helmet rack that is articulated by
the language following the term “comprising.” In any event, we are
convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
to secure the enclosure of Cooper against a generally vertical surface, and to
make any modifications that are necessary to do so, and that such an
enclosure would be fully capable of storing the number of helmets that
correspond in size to the size of the enclosure. Whether one wants to
enclose and store helmets, bikes, or any myriad number of articles, such as
sporting equipment, we have no doubt that the prior art establishes the
obviousness of a storage rack or enclosure having the features recited in
independent claims 7 and 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013