Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
2. Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Oros.
3. Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Liu.
ISSUE
A first issue is whether claims 9-10 were properly rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
According to the Examiner, claims 9-10 are viewed as being indefinite since the
claims contain positive recitals of limitations that are being referenced to non-
positively recited limitations to define the metes and bounds of the dependent
claims relative to an intervening claim (Answer 3).
A first anticipation issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Oros. This anticipation issue turns on whether Oros expressly or
inherently discloses “at least one extension member configured to extend forward
of a frontal mounting surface of the chassis to coincide with a bezel coupled to the
computer chassis when the drive cage is installed in the computer chassis.”
The second anticipation issue before us is whether Appellants have shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Liu. This anticipation issue turns on whether Liu expressly or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013