Appeal No. 1997-2878
Application No. 08/287,505
thereof and that the base member has an open top. Clearly,
the evidence provided by the examiner, including a tool box,
shows such a base member with an open top. The claims next
require a hinged cover attached to the base member (the prior
art tool boxes disclose such) and that the cover member be
free from apertures communicating with the interior of the
base member (clearly, the hinged cover of the tool box is free
from such apertures). The examiner has, inferentially, drawn
a line of demarcation with a claim such as broad claim 30
which also calls for a “telephone network interface” in its
preamble but then goes on to recite that this provides limited
access to the owner while providing complete access to a
telephone employee, thus giving life and meaning to the
“telephone network interface” in the preamble.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by any one of the
devices shown by Berkman, Whatley or Tuohy.
We have reversed the three rejections of claims 1 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have sustained the rejection of
claims 1 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also sustained
the rejection of claims 3 through 5 and 7 through 28 under 35
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007