Appeal 2007-2324
Application 10/629,775
disclosed in Yandell, for the purpose of containing pressure from forces such
as fire as discussed in the first three columns of that reference” (Answer 6).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. All of the
rejected claims require the same configuration of fire plate, side plate, and
cabinet holder recited in claim 26. As discussed above, we do not agree
with the Examiner that Vonderhaar and Holub would have rendered obvious
a laundry dryer top cover assembly that has a cabinet holder configured to
fasten a fire plate to a side plate, the cabinet holder having a plurality of
fastening pieces configured for insertion into the fire plate and the side plate.
Yandell fails to remedy the shortcomings of the other references with
respect to the claimed cabinet holder. We therefore reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 2-4, 19, and 20 over Vonderhaar, Holub, and Yandell.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-18 and 22-26 as
obvious over Vonderhaar and Holub. We also reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-4, 19, and 20 as obvious over Vonderhaar, Holub, and
Yandell.
REVERSED
lbg
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013