Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 8
Application No. 10/051,573
also determined that Whiten further discloses a support spar (54) sized to be
received by the first mounting pathway and the equipment cabinet and extending
substantially transversely between the first and second sides of the equipment
cabinet to support the first device therein. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5). The
examiner has further determined that Whiten discloses the equipment cabinet
means, device means having a housing means, and the support means of claim 15.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 7).
The appellants argue that claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-19, and 21 are patentable
because the tracks (58) in Whiten are not “devices” and they do not have a “chassis
that is sized to receive at least one component of said first device.” The appellants
further argue that the tracks (58) of Whiten do not include “housing means for
housing at least one component of said device means,” as recited in claim 15.
(Appellants’ Brief, p. 12). We sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7-9,
11, 13-18, and 21. We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 12, and 19.
To sustain the rejection of these claims, we must interpret the terms
“device,” “chassis,” and “component.” We determine the scope of the claims in
patent applications “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving
claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir.
2004)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007