Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 17
Application No. 08/370,540
The appellants argue that claims 39 and 42 cannot be read
on the applied prior art. We do not agree for the following
reasons.
As stated previously, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to reverse the position of Tisbo's
insertion tabs and socket receptacles. Accordingly, Tisbo's
ramp means (i.e., sloped portion 118) and associated slot
means (i.e., the space between alignment rail 112 and
projection spar 116) would have been on the back plate and
Tisbo's tab means (i.e, projection 126) and projection (i.e.,
tip 130) would have been on the top and bottom members. Thus,
Tisbo's projection (i.e., tip 130) engages the slot means
(i.e., the space between alignment rail 112 and projection
spar 116) when the tab means (i.e, projection 126) engages the
ramp means (i.e., sloped portion 118) as recited in claims 39
and 42.
Since all the limitations of claims 39 and 42 are
suggested by the applied prior art for the reasons stated
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007