Appeal No. 2002-0152 Page 3
Application No. 09/004,775
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims1, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 7, 12 and 18 requires, inter alia, a
center bracket connected directly to a slide and having apertures for receiving fasteners
for mounting a rim directly to the slide2. The center bracket 94 of appellant’s invention
is best illustrated in Figure 3 and described on page 7 of the specification. Consistent
with this illustration and underlying disclosure, we understand a “center bracket” as
1 The examiner may wish to review the claim language “the center bracket having a width
approximating the separation distance of the apertures and the single support strut” in claims 1 and 18
and the limitation “the combined slides and center bracket extending substantially the height of the
backboard” (note, for example, Figure 6, wherein the combined length of the slides and center bracket
appears to be substantially greater than the height of the backboard) in claims 1, 8 and 24 to determine
whether the meaning of these limitations is clear and whether they are consistent with appellant’s
underlying disclosure. Additionally, the examiner should consider whether the backboard, rim and support
strut are part of the claimed invention in each of appellant’s claims. If the examiner determines that any of
the above-noted limitations are unclear, confusing or inconsistent with the underlying disclosure or that it is
not clear whether the backboard, rim or support strut is included as part of the claimed invention in any of
appellant’s claims, the examiner should consider whether any rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are
appropriate.
2 While the characterization of a rim fastened to the center bracket as being mounted “directly” to
the slide seems somewhat imprecise, we understand this limitation as requiring that the center bracket be
provided with apertures for mounting the rim to the center bracket. A center bracket having such
apertures which is also connected directly to a slide or pair of slides, as also required by each of the
independent claims, is considered to have apertures for mounting the rim directly to the slide or slides as
required by the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007