Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 1 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by “many
apparatuses,” the examiner citing Berkman, Whatley and Tuohy
as examples of various “apparatuses” which would anticipate
the instant claimed subject matter.
The issue here is what weight is to be accorded the
preambles of broad claims 1 and 29. The examiner gives the
preambles, relating to “A telephone network interface
apparatus...” and “In a telephone network interface
apparatus...” no consideration, contending that the recited
apparatus need not be a telephone network interface and the
fact that appellant intends to use the apparatus with no
aperture on its cover as a telephone network interface does
not differentiate the apparatus from a tool box, cabinet,
etc., used by an electrician “for receiving electrical
components.” Each of the cited patents discloses an apparatus
having a hinged cover free from apertures communicating with
the inside.
It is appellant’s position that the preamble of claim 1
has a specific limitation that is deemed “essential to point
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007