Appeal No. 2000-1482 Page 12
Application No. 08/995,706
Claims 23, 24, 28 and 29
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 23, 24, 28
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 23 and 24 include the limitation "a pair of
positioners at opposing sides of the base." Claim 28 includes
the limitations that a first transverse positioner is
convertibly coupled to a first side of the plate and a second
transverse positioner is convertibly coupled to a second side
of the plate. Claim 29 includes the limitation that a first
pair of lateral positioners and a second pair of lateral
positioners are selectively coupled to sides of the plate.1
Similar to claim 19 discussed above, the applied prior
art does not teach or suggest positioners located on the sides
of the base plate as set forth in the above-noted limitations.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 23,
24, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
1It appears to us that this limitation is not shown in
the drawings as required by 37 CFR § 1.83(a). The appellants
should take appropriate action to ensure that every claimed
feature is shown in the drawings.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007