Appeal No. 99-1479
Application 08/609,991
lower retaining tab are shown in Figures 2-7," and also refers
to Fig. 11 with respect to features recited in dependent
claims 32 and 36. The examiner does not, however, "point[]
out where all of the specific limitations recited in the
rejected claims are found in the prior art relied upon in the
rejection." See MPEP § 1208, pages 1200-16 to -17, item
10(c)(7th Ed., July 1998).
We have reviewed Grass AG, but do not find where,
either in Figs. 2 to 7 or in Fig. 11, there is disclosed a
retaining plate having upper and lower retaining tabs and a
positioning structure, as defined in claim 30. The rejection
of claim 30, and of dependent claims 32, 33, 35 and 36,
therefore will not be sustained.
Rejections Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
(1) Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Rasmussen, which discloses in Fig. 3 a
retaining plate 72 for mounting the end of a supporting runner
50 to the body of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007