Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 14
Application No. 10/051,573
as shown in Figure 1, is located so that it does not extend downwardly beyond a
bottom surface of the first device (58, B), i.e., the bottom surface of bottle (B).
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 18, which
depends from claim 16 and further requires that the first mounting pathway is
located in the chassis so that the support spar does not extend upwardly beyond a
top surface of the first device. We find that the support spar (54) in Whiten, as
shown in Figure 1, is located so that it does not extend upwardly beyond a top
surface of the first device (58, B), i.e., the top wall (62) of track (58).
Finally, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 21, which
depends from claim 16 and further requires that the first device has a width that is
less than the distance between the sides of the equipment cabinet and where the
system further includes a second device having a second chassis sized to receive at
least one component of the second device, a portion of the chassis defining at least
a second mounting pathway and the second device being mounted adjacent the first
device and engaging the support spar. The appellants argue that Whiten does not
disclose a device having a chassis and thus cannot be said to disclose the
arrangement of claim 21 wherein the first and second devices are mounted adjacent
to one another within the device opening. (Appellants’ Brief, p. 15). For the
reasons provided above for claim 16, we disagree with the appellants’ position that
Whiten does not disclose a device having a chassis. We further find that Whiten
discloses, as shown in Figure 1, a second device (58, B) having a second chassis
(58) and situated adjacent the first device (58, B) within the device opening, where
the adjacent devices each have mounting pathways.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007