Appeal No. 1998-2242
Application No. 08/430,937
of the orthogonal grill as taught by Matsumoto or Kohn.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that
the applied prior art of DiNicolantonio establishes the lack
of novelty of claims 3, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16. This prior art
reference does not anticipate claims 4, 5, 6, 14, 17 and 18.
We also affirm the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We further have determined that the examiner has not
established the prima
facie obviousness of any of the appealed claims. Therefore,
all rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be reversed. Our
reasons follow.
With reference to DiNicolantonio, we agree with the
examiner’s finding of fact that DiNicolantonio discloses a
tray comprised of at least one tray panel 40, which tray panel
has beneath it an orthogonal grill of stiffeners. We further
note that the “comprising” and “comprised” language, of claim
15 is open-ended. Thus, the tray of claim 15 can be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007