Appeal No. 1998-1924 Page 4
Application No. 08/642,907
No. 10, mailed February 18, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 9, filed January 12, 1998) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Gierveld
in view of Gray. The examiner found that Gierveld
substantially taught the invention as claimed except that
Gierveld does not disclose slots that extend transversely of
the frame and which span the distance between the frame side
walls. The examiner relies on Gray for teaching slots that
extend transversely of the frame and span the distance between
the frame side walls. The examiner concludes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007