Appeal No. 96-0638
Application 08/074,546
Turning first to the rejection of claims 12 to 15 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, we note that claims 1 to 6, 12 and 13 relate to appellants’ disclosed first
embodiment in Figures 1 to 13. Separately, claims 7 to 11, 14 and 15 relate to appellants’
second embodiment disclosed in Figure 14. The functional language expressed in claims
1 through 6, 12 and 13 is consistent with appellants’ disclosed invention relating to the first
embodiment. The examiner’s concern with respect to independent claim 12 is misplaced
in that the second cover is disclosed and claimed to slide relative to the first cover. As
such, we reverse the rejection as it relates to claims 12 and 13.
On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 since the recitation
in independent claim 14 of a cover "sliding" means is misdescriptive and subject to
erroneous interpretation since this claim relates to the second embodiment in Figure 14
and the “sliding” means does not by its own recited terms provide for the pivoting action
set forth in the latter part of this claim. There is no second cover sliding operation
occurring in appellants’ disclosed Figure 14 embodiment but only a pivoting operation of
the second cover 45 with respect to the first cover 43. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 14 and 15 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
We reverse the rejection of the above-noted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and,
consequently, the rejection of other dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
Takamatsu does not cure the defects to be noted with respect to Tobimatsu.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007