Appeal No. 2001-0401 Page 4
Application No. 09/019,451
(3) Claims 6, 7 and 9 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez in
view of Bovenzi and Labrum.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed October 24, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed September 13, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
November 14, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the3
2As noted above, the rejections of claims 11 and 28 were
withdrawn by the examiner on page 6 of the answer.
3We note that the phrases "said first framework" in claim
11 and "the first container" in claim 24 lack proper
antecedent basis. In addition, "a plurality of brackets
mounted to said first storage compartment for receivably
holding a level" as recited in claim 7 is not shown in the
drawings as required by 37 CFR § 1.83 (Figure 12 shows only a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007