Ex Parte Luffel et al - Page 2



               Appeal No. 2006-1853                                                                        Page 2                  
               Application No. 10/051,573                                                                                          


                                                      BACKGROUND                                                                   
                       The appellants’ invention relates to a rack-mount storage system (10)                                       
               including an equipment cabinet (12) sized to receive one or more devices (16, 36).                                  
               The devices (16, 36) are supported within equipment cabinet (12) by a support spar                                  
               (20) that extends between first and second sides (28, 30) of the cabinet (12).  The                                 
               devices (16, 36) are provided with a chassis (48, 79) for holding components                                        
               within the devices.  Device (16) may be provided with a first channel member (56)                                   
               therein which, together with the bottom surface (24) of the chassis (48), defines a                                 
               first mounting pathway (18).  The first mounting pathway (18) is sized to slidably                                  
               receive the support spar (20).  Similarly, the second device (36) may have a similar                                
               channel member (58) therein, which together with a bottom surface (82) of the                                       
               chassis (79), defines a second mounting pathway (38).   Independent claims 1 and                                    
               14-16 are representative of the subject matter on appeal, and a copy of these claims                                
               can be found in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.                                                              

                       The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:                                      
               Robertson et al. (Robertson) 5,788,091    Aug. 04, 1998                                                             
               Whiten et al. (Whiten)  5,806,417    Sep. 15, 1998                                                                  

                       The following rejections are before us for review:                                                          
                   1. The examiner has rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                                          
                       paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and                                    
                       distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention.                               







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007