Appeal No. 1998-0907
Application 08/121,365
3, that portions of the support members meet the recited claim
language. This is additionally confirmed at column 3, lines
10-12 wherein it states:
There are two flanges 62 and 64 extending
substantially perpendicularly from the sides of the
base portion 56.
Appellants’ claim language does not designate any
particular portion of the support member, and as such, is
fully met by Ragland as explained by the Examiner . 1
Appellants have not contested this explanation. Thus, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Appellants repeat the same
argument made with respect to claim 7, namely that all of
Ragland’s support members are parallel to the frame (and we
assume parallel to the plane of the face plate). As explained
by the Examiner, portions of Ragland’s support members are
perpendicular to the face plate as claimed. Thus, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 for the same
reasons supra.
1 We note that in Appellants’ prior art Figure 2, portions
of support member 16 are also perpendicular to the plane of
the face plate.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007