Ex parte Wendel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 1999

08388573 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 1999)

Application for patent filed February 14, 1995.1
Claim 1 has been amended subsequent to final rejection.2
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. WENDEL
__________
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,5731
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before PATE, STAAB and McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Christopher M. Wendel appeals from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 9, all of the claims pending in the
application. We reverse.2
The invention relates to "modular furniture of the type
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
2
used for temporary exhibition or display purposes and, in
particular, to a novel base or cabinet formed of four
(identical) panels
interengaged by the use of lap joints which facilitates rapid
assembly" (specification, page 1). Claim 1 is illustrative
and reads as follows:
1. A cabinet stand assembly for rapid set-up and take
down which comprises:
a) four panels with each panel of the same width having a
pair of opposing edges and a pair of opposing large area
surfaces extending between said edges;
b) a first releasable fastener affixed to one of said
pair opposing edges of each panel; and
c) a second releasable fastener affixed to a large area
surface of each of said panels proximate to the other of said
pair of opposing edges, said first and second fasteners
releasably engaging each other upon contact therebetween, the
placement of said four panels in alternate overlapping edge
configuration whereby adjacent first and second fasteners
interengage forming a cabinet stand assembly of equal width
sides.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Manlove et al. (Manlove) 3,837,721
Sept. 24, 1974
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
An English language translation of this reference,3
prepared on behalf of the Patent and Trademark Office, is
appended hereto.
3
Citterio 4,371,221 Feb. 1,
1983
Cobos et al.(Cobos) 4,951,576 Aug. 28,
1990 Green 5,454,331 Oct.
3, 1995 (filed
Dec. 10, 1993)
Merlo et al.(Solari) 573,065 Feb. 18, 19583
(Italian Patent Document)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as follows:
a) claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over
Solari in view of Green;
b) claim 4 as being unpatentable over Solari in view of
Green and Manlove;
c) claim 7 as being unpatentable over Solari in view of
Green and Citterio; and
d) claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable over Solari in
view of Green and Cobos.
Reference is made to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 13)
and to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
4
merits of these rejections.
Solari, the examiner's primary reference, discloses

a folding portable stand, intended for the setup of
booths at expositions or the like, which, when it is
opened and unfolded [see Figure 1], forms a complete
vertical wall of a central furniture unit and is
constituted by additional parts, among them
adaptable segments which can be oriented as desired
and equipped with various shelves or removable
platforms for the support of any objects to be
displayed, whereas said mobile unit, when folded or
closed [see Figure 3], can form, with the aid of
supplementary panels, a closed box in which the
various shelves, platforms or other removable
accessories can be placed and which constitutes the
shipping container for the transport of the portable
unit itself [translation, page 2].
As best shown in Figure 3, the panels of the stand are joined
by hinges which allow the stand to be closed into box form or
opened into a variety of display positions.
The Solari stand fails to meet a number of limitations in
claim 1 including those relating to the first and second
releasable fasteners. These particular limitations require a
first releasable fastener to be affixed to one of a pair of
opposing edges of each of four panels and a second releasable
fastener to be affixed to a large area surface of each panel
proximate to the other of said pair of opposing edges, with
the fasteners releasably engaging each other for placement of
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
5
the four panels in alternate overlapping edge configuration.
The examiner's reliance on Green to overcome these
deficiencies in Solari is not well founded.
Green pertains to furniture which can be easily assembled
without the use of metal fasteners. To this end, each piece
of furniture consists of a number of components joined by
mortises and tenons. Figures 7 through 15 depict a drawer
having panels connected by such structure.
According to the examiner, "[i]t would have been obvious
and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the structure of Solari to include alternate
overlapping joints, as known in the art and further shown in
[Figure 7 of] Green, used for the same intended purpose,
thereby providing structure as claimed" (answer, page 5).
Green, however, does not teach first and second
releasable fasteners which are disposed as required by claim 1
to place four panels in alternate overlapping edge
configuration. Moreover, there is nothing in the combined
teachings of Solari and Green which would have furnished the
artisan with any motivation to somehow modify the articulated
panel joints disclosed by Solari with the fixed panel joints
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
6
disclosed by Green. To do so would apparently render the
Solari stand incapable of its essential folding
characteristic. Thus, even if the Solari and Green references
are analogous art (the appellant argues that they are not),
their combined teachings would not have suggested the subject
matter recited in claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since Manlove, Citterio and Cobos do not cure this
fundamental flaw in the examiner's evidence of obviousness, we
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
7
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1 or of claims 2 through 9 which depend therefrom.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LAWRENCE J. STAAB )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
8
JPM/pgg
Joseph H. Ruediger
Nelson and Roediger
2623 North 7th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006
Appeal No. 98-1040
Application 08/388,573
9