Appeal No. 2000-2168
Application 09/130,383
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, we
sustain each of the three rejections of independent claims 1 and
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 but, on the other hand, we reverse both
rejections of dependent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For each of the rejections of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, the examiner provides detailed correspondence to the
elements recited in representative claim 1 as taught and shown in
Piper, Carroll and Gray at pages 4-6 of the answer. Inasmuch as
we agree with this correspondence, we see no need to repeat the
examiner's position here. Similarly, we are in agreement with
the examiner's positions set forth at pages 7 and 8 of the answer
which are in response to appellant's arguments set forth with
respect to these rejections at pages 4-6 of the brief.
Like the examiner, we agree with the examiner's assessment
that the subject matter of the independent claims 1 and 3 on
appeal essentially sets forth only the claimed guard per se with
the other features that are recited in the claims being merely of
an intended use. To expand upon this reasoning, we note that in
the representative independent claim 1 preamble, the features
relating to the cabinetry are recited in the present tense,
whereas the use of the guard in association with the cabinetry
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007