Appeal No. 1997-3476
Application 08/341,149
independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 3, 4, 6
and 11 must be reversed.
In a corresponding manner then, the rejection of dependent
claims 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Nepela must also be reversed.
We also reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15
on appeal as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 6 and 11 as being
anticipated by Aizawa. Independent claim 15 is more specific
than independent claim 1 but contains substantially identical
common subject matter. As to this rejection, the pair of side
rails are recited in claims 1 and 15 on appeal as “having regular
rectangular shapes with straight parallel inner and outer side
walls which extend along the full length of each side rails” with
the further limitation “wherein said side rails have chamfer-like
tapered portions.”
At page 4 of the final rejection, the examiner regards
element 4 as a center rail and elements 5a and 5b in Aizawa as
comprising a pair of side rails in accordance with the
requirements of indepen-dent claims 1 and 15 on appeal. The same
view is expressed in the answer. There appears to be no dispute
that element 4 comprises a center rail and elements 5a and 5b
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007