Ex Parte Lawrie et al - Page 4



             Appeal 2007-1670                                                                                   
             Application 10/102,565                                                                             
                          feature being located on the same side of the door panel,                             
                          wherein the door panel has an opening for receiving the                               
                          cable drum housing, the opening shaped to receive the                                 
                          cable drum housing when the cable drum housing is in a                                
                          first position and shaped to prevent the cable drum                                   
                          housing from passing through the opening when the                                     
                          cable drum housing is in a second position.                                           

                                             THE REJECTIONS                                                     
                   The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:                       
                    Dobson                     US 2001/0034975 A1              Nov. 1, 2001                     
                   The following rejections are before us for review.                                           
                1. Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16-23, and 31-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                 
                   anticipated by Dobson.                                                                       
                2. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over                  
                   Dobson.                                                                                      

                                                    ISSUE                                                       
                   The issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner                   
             erred in finding that Dobson anticipates claims 1, 3, 5-11, 16-23, and 31-42 and                   
             that Dobson renders unpatentable claims 12 and 24.  In particular, for independent                 
             claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims, the issue turns on whether Dobson                      
             discloses a second mounting feature being sandwiched between the first mounting                    




                                                       4                                                        



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

Last modified: September 9, 2013