Appeal No. 2001-1845
Application 09/093,454
As for appellants’ comments on our treatment of dependent
claims 2, 3, 12 and 13, we see no reason to change our view as
set forth on page 6 of the earlier decision. The broad
recitation that the steel anchor frames of appellants’ invention
are “rectangular in configuration” does not distinguish over the
anchor members (68, 70, 72) of Pracht which we view as each
broadly constituting a frame that is “rectangular in
configuration,” at least in plan view. Appellants have not in
the claims on appeal defined a steel anchor frame with vertical
and horizontal members connected together to define a rectangular
frame like that depicted in Figure 3 of the application drawings
(at 38).
In light of the foregoing, appellants’ request is granted to
the extent of reconsidering our decision, but is denied with
respect to making any changes therein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007