Appeal No. 1999-1498
Application 08/547,604
not one which is “bolted, clamped, screwed, or tied together”.
Since Deneke’s frame 4 is made of several pieces, as shown in
Fig. 2, we are doubtful that it can be considered “unitary”.
However, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue, since we
agree with appellants’ second and third arguments, supra.
As for the second argument, the examiner identifies
Deneke’s elements 19 and 21 as the claimed T-bar. We do not
consider this to be correct because only element 19 is a bar
“extending longitudinally along [the] bottom wall [of the
frame]” as claimed, and it is rectangular in cross-section,
not T-shaped. Items 21 and 22 are supports for bar 19, rather
than part of the bar. Also, the bottom wall 23 of Deneke’s
frame is not “shaped to include” the bar, as recited in claim
22.
The third argument concerns the recitation “said T-bar .
. . including a detent.” Deneke’s specification does not
expressly disclose a detent, but the examiner, noting the ball
bearings disclosed by Deneke between tracks 18 and 19 (Fig.
4), seems to take the position in the final rejection that a
detent would be inherent in Deneke because “Detents are a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007