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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007