Appeal No. 1998-3420
Application 08/597,033
The language of claim 14 on appeal merely requires
that the prongs extend through the central hole (which the
prongs (7) of Cheng clearly do) and further sets forth that
the prongs are “for” holding the rosette in the central hole
and in the tray base, which is exactly what the prongs (7) of
Cheng are also used for when engaged with the holes (8) of the
plate (6) seen in Figure 4 of the patent. Thus, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Cheng.
As for dependent claims 22 and 23 on appeal, we
observe that such claims have not been separately argued by
appellants with any reasonable degree of specificity apart
from claim 14. Accordingly, we consider that these claims will
fall with independent claim 14, from which they depend.
Claim 16 on appeal sets forth that the prongs have
outward extending teeth “for snapping into the central hole in
the tray base and holding the rosette in the central hole.”
The teeth on the prongs (7) of Cheng are for snapping into the
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007