Appeal No. 1999-1498
Application 08/547,604
Claim 22 is not anticipated
by Deneke for at least the
following reasons: First, Deneke
fails to disclose a frame that is
a unitary structure. Second,
Deneke fails to disclose a frame
that includes a
T-bar extending longitudinally
along its bottom wall. Third,
Deneke fails to disclose a frame
that includes a detent included
in said T-bar.
First, with regard to whether Deneke’s frame 4 is
“unitary”, the examiner states on page 4 of the final
rejection that “the Deneke device is a single unit and3
therefore unitary”, and on page 3 of the answer that “The term
‘integral’ has a meaning different from ‘unitary’.” However,
although a structure made up of a number of pieces may be
“integral”, it is not necessarily “unitary.” As indicated in
the quote on page 6 of appellant’s brief from In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1997),
“integral” has been interpreted as being a broader term than
“unitary”. Also, in In re Heltzel, 137 F.2d 113, 115, 58 USPQ
556, 557 (CCPA 1943), it was held that a unitary structure is
3References herein to the final rejection are to Paper
No. 16 (erroneously numbered 14)(October 9, 1997).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007