Appeal No. 2001-1719
Application No. 09/069,907
the intended use. The “adapted to” recitations are limitations of claim 1, In re Dean, supra,
and cannot be ignored. The bracket disclosed by Kurz does not meet these
limitations because there is no indication therein that appendage 60 is so positioned and
sized as to be capable of coupling to a recessed portion of an expansion card (as we have
construed this expression, supra). Absent any express or inherent disclosure of these
limitations, Kurz does not anticipate claim 1, nor it follows, claims 2 to 4, 12 to 14 and 22,
dependent thereon.
As for method claim 15, the examiner states on page 7 of the answer that:
Finally, Appellant states Kurz does not teach a method for manufacturing a
bracket. Since the structural [sic] is critical to the steps being performed, the
method claims are predicated on the structural recitation for patentability.
The structure is clearly set forth in the Kurz and Petitpierre reference,
accordingly.
It is not clear what is meant by this statement, but in any event, we find no disclosure in
Kurz of any method of manufacturing the bracket disclosed therein, let alone of any steps
corresponding to the forming and manipulating steps recited in claim 15. Kurz therefore
does not anticipate claim 15, or dependent claims 16 and 17.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007