Appeal No. 1999-0284 Page 5
Application No. 08/721,666
i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference,
or 'fully met' by it."
The examiner's position (answer, p. 3) is that claims 1
and 9 are clearly anticipated by Figure 3 of Harada. 2
Specifically, the examiner states that
the cover shown in Fig. 3 of Harada et al will shield the
forks of Harada et al as the cover shown in Fig. 3 is
large enough to do so. The cover of Harada et al
includes an extension, an upper covering unit, and a
lower covering unit.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-8) that Harada's cover
(the unnumbered element at the top of Figure 3) lacks the
claimed lower support unit and upper covering unit. We agree.
In that regard, Harada fails to disclose the following two
elements recited in claims 1 and 9: (1) a lower support unit
which is "rectangular in shape and has three sidewalls, two
top flanges, and a first open side;" and (2) an upper covering
unit which is "rectangular in shape and has three sidewalls
2The examiner has not done an element-by-element
comparison between the claimed subject matter and the
disclosure of Harada.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007