Ex Parte Rock - Page 5



              Appeal 2007-1687                                                                     
              Application 10/136,781                                                               

              of Bisaka and Edwards; and claims 7, 12, and 15 are correspondingly                  
              rejected over these references and further in view of Gelting, Okamoto, and          
              Hanrahan respectively.                                                               
                           THE § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH, REJECTION                                   
                    According to the Examiner, “the [S]pecification, while being enabling          
              for providing the continuous height adjustability for the top end plate as           
              shown in Fig. 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for this                     
              arrangement for the bottom end plate” (Answer 3).  The Examiner further              
              explains that “[t]he bottom end plate is shown and disclosed as only                 
              providing a fixed positioning of the end plate and does not teach or suggest         
              of [sic] the adjustability as defined in the claims” (id.).                          
                    Contrary to the Examiner’s belief, none of the independent claims on           
              appeal require continuous adjustability at the bottom (or second) end plate,         
              and independent claim 32 does not require adjustability at either the top            
              (first) or bottom (second) end plates.  In any event, as correctly argued by         
              Appellant (Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 2-3),2 the Specification enables                 
              continuous adjustability at both end plates by expressly teaching that the slot      
              openings 78, which provide continuous adjustability, are disposed in “either         
              the first and/or second ends 72, 74 of each side plate 36” (Specification            
              14:4-5).                                                                             
                    Under these circumstances, the § 112, first paragraph, rejection of all        
              claims cannot be sustained.                                                          
                                                                                                  
              2 The Examiner inappropriately has failed to even acknowledge much less              
              rebut this argument.                                                                 
                                                5                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013