Appeal No. 1998-3420
Application 08/597,033
For the above-reasons, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 9 and 61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on O’Brien.2
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 16,
19, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Reisman, we note, with respect to independent claim 14, that
the examiner has taken the position that Reisman discloses
(Figs. 9-10) a tray (16) and a first rosette (59) having a
generally disc-shaped base (66), disc-engaging rosette petals
(63) and “spaced prongs with teeth (61,64)” (answer, page 5).
Like appellants, we do not see that the rosette of Reisman has
“spaced prongs extending from the rosette base generally
perpendicularly in a direction opposite the rosette petals,”
as is required in appellants’ claim 14 on appeal. In
2With respect to claim 61, we note that it appears that
the recitation in line 11 regarding the hook having “a ledge”
for preventing disengagement of the cover from the receiver,
should actually be that the hook has --- an edge --- for
preventing disengagement of the hook from the receiver. We
have so interpreted the claim for purposes of this appeal.
However, correction of this ambiguity should be made during
any further prosecution of the application before the
examiner.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007