Appeal No. 1997-3476
Application 08/341,149
Contrary to the view expressed by appellant in the brief,
claims 12 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over either Nepela or Aizawa rather over than both
of them together.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and,
consequently, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Briefly stated, independent claim 1 on appeal requires
recitation of three rails: a center rail and a pair of side
rails. We do not agree with the examiner's view expressed at
page 3 of the final rejection as to this rejection and repeated
in the answer that Nepela teaches and shows a center rail 20 as
well as a pair of side rails. Figures 1, 1a and Figure 1b teach
and show a center recessed portion 20 which is not a center rail
as alleged by the examiner. There are, however, two side rails
16 and 18 which have respective outer and inner recesses 22, 24,
26 and 28. Therefore, we are in agreement with appellant's view
expressed at pages 12 and 14 of the brief that Nepela does not
disclose the use of a center rail. As such, the rejection of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007