Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
tenon formed therein and the walls of the container has [sic]
tenons formed therein.” Appellants argue that while it is true
that Lay speaks of the spring mechanisms (20) therein being
“secured or fixed to a wall member” (col. 2, lines 1-6) of one of
the container or shell members (11, 12), the wall member shown in
Lay (Fig. 3) to which the spring mechanisms are fixed is the base
of the shell member, not a wall extending from the base as
required in the claims on appeal. In addition, appellants argue
(brief, page 6) that Lay fails to teach a tool retaining insert
wherein at least one securement member on the insert cooperates
with the securement members on the housing wall to secure the
insert with the housing member wall, as recited in claim 49.
Appellants make a similar argument with respect to method claim
55, contending that Lay fails to disclose or suggest providing an
insert and housing member with mating mechanisms which mate with
one another when the insert is positioned within the cavity of
the housing member (brief, page 7).
From our perspective, the examiner has correctly determined
that Lay discloses a housing member (e.g., 12) defining a cavity,
wherein the cavity is defined by a base and a wall extending from
the base, and wherein the wall includes a plurality of securement
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007