Appeal No. 2000-2175 Page 10
Application No. 09/268,925
duct connectors that work to deliver heated and/or cooled air
to various rooms and spaces within a building structure, which
is not true with respect to all duct connectors recited in just
the body of claims 1 and 7. Thus, we conclude that the claim
preamble in this instance does not merely state a purpose or
intended use for the claimed structure. Rather, those words do
give "life and meaning" and provide further positive
limitations to the invention claimed.
In view of the above-noted determinations, we conclude
that the wiring harness protector of Ono does not anticipate or
render obvious the subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject independent
claims 1 and 7, and claims 2-4, 6, 9, 10 and 15 dependent
thereon, based on Ono is reversed.
The rejection based on Meyer
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Meyer.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007