Appeal No. 99-1479
Application 08/609,991
but rather, the fin 18 is at the lowermost point on the
vertical flange. The examiner asserts at pages 4 to 5 of the
answer that "the lower fixing flange can be considered to be a
horizontal part of fin (18)," but we do not agree, because the
horizontal fin is recited as "extending laterally from said
vertical flange," and the vertical flange as "extending
upwardly from said lower fixing flange." Element 18 of Grass
AG cannot be read both as the recited lower fixing flange and
as the horizontal fin, as the examiner apparently intends,
because both of the quoted limitations describing how the fin
and the vertical flange extend would not be met.
Another limitation of claim 14 not present in Grass
AG is the requirement for the upper running flange of the
pull-out runner to be "extending above and covering said upper
and lower running flanges of said supporting runner," since in
Grass AG the upper running flange (at 15) of pull-out runner 4
does not cover the upper and lower flanges of element 14 on
supporting runner 3, but instead extends in the opposite
direction. The examiner's statement on page 4 of the answer
that "the running flange (3) of each pull-out runner covers
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007