Appeal No. 2001-2166
Application 09/275,965
flange 60 against the lower inclined slot edge 44 to resiliently
lock the holder to the slat-wall.
The examiner’s analysis as to how the limitations in
appealed claims 1 through 12 read on the foregoing structure
disclosed by Hutchison appears in detail on pages 3 through 5 in
the answer. For the most part, this analysis is well founded.
As framed by the appellant (see pages 6 and 7 in the brief),
the dispositive issue with respect to independent claims 1 and 7
is whether Hutchison meets the claim limitations requiring the
support member to exert pressure “against both of said upper and
lower surfaces of said slot.” The examiner’s finding that the
three upper surfaces (43, 46 and 37) and the three lower surfaces
(44, undenoted and 39) extending between the opening and rear
surface 35 of Hutchison’s slot 34 collectively define a slot
“upper surface” and a slot “lower surface,” respectively, as
recited in claims 1 and 7 is eminently reasonable given the
spatial relationships between these surfaces and the overall
configuration of the slot (see Figure 2b). As Hutchison’s
support member (merchandise holder 50) exerts pressure against
both of these “upper” and “lower” slot surfaces via flanges 60
and 64, the limitations in question find full response in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007