Appeal No. 2001-2166 Application 09/275,965 Claims 6 and 12 fall with claims 5 and 11 as a result of being grouped therewith by the appellant for purposes of the appeal (see page 5 in the brief). We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2, 4, 8 and 10 as being anticipated by Hutchison. Claims 2 and 8 depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively, and require the slot to have a “generally triangular” cross-section. The examiner’s position (see pages 4, 7 and 8 in the answer) that this limitation is broad enough to read on Hutchison’s self- described “T-shaped” slot (see Hutchison at column 2, line 48) is not reasonable. Claims 4 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively, and require the support member to have a curved portion with a top member and bottom member, wherein the top member exerts pressure against the upper surface of the slot in a generally vertical direction and the bottom member exerts pressure against the lower surface of the slot in a generally vertical direction. The examiner’s determination (see pages 4, 8 and 9 in the answer) that Hutchison’s base member 52 constitutes such a curved portion simply because it has a rounded peripheral edge is not well 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007