Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 12
Application No. 10/051,573
the rails by side tabs (75) and/or by a pair of fasteners (78). (Specification, page 7,
lines 21-26).
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 8, which
depends from claim 7 and further requires that the support spar engage first and
second mounting rails of the equipment cabinet. As explained above, Figures 1
and 2 of Whiten show the support spar (54) engaging the sides (10, 14) of the
equipment cabinet via the adapter (40) and front and rear uprights (20, 22). We
find that the adapters (40) are mounting rails, because they are used to mount
display shelf (16) on uprights (20, 22) and run along the sides (10, 14) of the
cabinet to function as rails. (Whiten, column 5, lines 57-59 and column 5, line 65
– column 6, line 3).
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 9, which
depends from claim 1 and further requires that the device have a width that is less
than the distance between the sides of the device opening. Despite the appellants’
position that this claim is independently patentable, the appellants do not
separately argue the reasons for patentability of this dependent claim. Rather, they
rely on their arguments for patentability of independent claim 1.6 For the reasons
provided above for sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we also affirm
the rejection of claim 9.
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 11, which
depends from claim 9 and further requires that the system include a second device
6 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7) requires that the appellant explain why the claims of the group are believed to
be separately patentable. Merely pointing out differences in what the claims cover is not an argument as
to why the claims are separately patentable.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007