Ex Parte Roesner et al - Page 10



             Appeal 2007-1671                                                                                   
             Application 10/374,837                                                                             
             drive cage because it, and not casing assembly 40, directly receives the floppy                    
             drive therein (Oros, col. 3, ll. 38-41).  In addition, the casing assembly 40 in Oros              
             is read as the chassis because it is rigidly connected to the assembly structure 10                
             and acts as the base to which the drive cage 28 is mounted (Oros, col. 3, ll. 15-22).              
                   Further, as found supra, the drive retaining assembly 28 has extension                       
             portions (see, Fig. 8, stop element 74 is mounted on extensions of cage 28) such                   
             that when the cage 28 is inserted into the chassis 40, the extensions extend forward               
             of a frontal mounting surface of the chassis, e.g. the flanges 42 of the chassis 40.               
             In this way, the stop element 74 carried by the cage extension members, is located                 
             before or coincidently with the outer surface of the cover or a bezel 22 as required               
             by claim 8 (Oros, col. 3, ll. 54-59).  As such, Oros anticipates claim 8 and claims                
             9-14 fall with claim 8.                                                                            
                                                                                                               
             The Liu Reference                                                                                  
                   Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                  
             Liu.   Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate                         
             patentability of claims 9-14 that depend from claim 8, which is the sole                           
             independent claim among those claims.  Therefore, claims 9-14 stand or fall with                   
             claim 8.  See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                                                  
                   Appellants argue “independent Claim 8 is clearly patentable over Liu.”                       
             (Appeal Br. 9.)  More specifically, Appellants state that:                                         

                          In the Final Office Action, the Examiner appears to refer                             

                                                      10                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013