Appeal 2007-1670
Application 10/102,565
first mounting feature (48) and the door panel (18) on the dry side (22) of the door
panel (Answer 4). We disagree.
Even if one were to accept the Examiner’s broad interpretation of
“sandwiched between” to mean simply “between” (Answer 5), Dobson does not
disclose the second mounting feature (46) between the first mounting feature (48)
and the door panel (18), when the door panel is assembled. In the Appellants’
invention, the door panel (12) abuts against lugs (22), and the panel (12) and lugs
(22) are connected by bolt (34), which extends through threaded fixing holes (18)
(Specification 3: ¶24). As such, a portion of the door panel (12) (that portion
surrounding the threaded fixing hole (18) that abuts lugs (22)) is located to one
side of lugs (22). On the contrary, in Dobson, the second mounting feature (46),
when assembled, passes through an opening in the door panel (18). As such, the
second mounting feature (46) does not abut the door panel (18), but rather passes
through opening (50), which is larger than the width of the mounting feature (46).
This configuration results in there being no portion of the door panel (18) located
to the right of the second mounting feature (46) in Dobson (Finding of Fact 1). As
such, the second mounting feature (46) is not located between the first mounting
feature (48) and the door panel (18) (Finding of Fact 2).
Further, we disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of “sandwiched
between” to mean simply “between.” This interpretation essentially reads the term
“sandwiched” out of claims 1 and 16 entirely. We agree with the Appellants
(Reply Br. 2) that the term “sandwich” has a specific connotation which implies
that the sandwiched component is directly between the other two components
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013