Appeal No. 1998-3420
Application 08/597,033
holes (8) of the plate (6) and do not in any way engage the
central hole in the tray base to hold the rosette in the
central hole. For that reason, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 16, or of claims 17 through 19
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Cheng. 3
With respect to claim 15 on appeal, and the
examiner’s rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Reisman or Cheng and Thorud, we must agree with appellants
(brief, pages 15-17)
3During any further consideration of the application, the
examiner and appellants should carefully review claim 18 on
appeal, with an eye towards exactly what structure of the
disclosed invention is being set forth therein. While claim
18 is an original claim, we find nothing in the specification
or drawings which appears to correspond to the subject matter
of claim 18. The only embodiments relating to a twist-lock
rosette arrangement we have seen in the specification are
described on pages 25 and 26, and shown in Figures 51A through
56B of the drawings. However, in these embodiments it is the
central hole in the tray which has the radially enlarged
portions (139) for receiving prongs (143) of the rosette and
for permitting twisting of the rosette into a locking
position, and not the holes of the rosette itself.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007