Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
When the protrusions 32, 34, 36 of the cage 6 contact the fingers 12, 12 of the
chassis 4, they connect and are considered together for purposes of current flow.
Further, inherent to the biased connection between these members is the
mechanical aspect of the connection which, albeit is limited to friction forces, but
nevertheless still exists to connect or couple the cage and chassis together in some
capacity (Liu, col. 2, ll. 21-27).
Finally, as found supra, while claim 8 does not require a bezel as part of the
claimed combination, it nevertheless references one as a measure of extension of
the drive cage extension member. Liu is silent as to the disclosure of a bezel to
cover the chassis 4. However, the Examiner found, and we agree, that the at least
one extension member of the cage 6 in Liu is capable of extending forward of the
frontal mounting surface of the chassis in a manner sufficient to answer the
claimed description (Final Office Action 4). In reply, Appellants argue" [t]he
Examiner offers nothing more than a conclusory statement without providing any
indication as to how the protrusions 34 or 36 would be capable of meeting the
limitations of independent Claim 8.” (Appeal Br. 8.)
We agree with the Examiner that the extension of the cage 6 in Liu is
capable of extension sufficient to mount a bezel as required by claim 8, and add the
following explanation. In Liu, once the cage 6 is seated within the mounting
opening 8 in the chassis 4, the at least one extension member(s) 24 will sufficiently
extend beyond the frontal surface of the chassis 4 to allow a bezel, with a thickness
substantially equal to the extension, to mount to the chassis so as to be even with
the end of the extension member(s). Binding precedent made clear that the Board
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013