Ex Parte SEVIER et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2001-0045                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 09/103,347                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants’ invention relates to equipment mounting racks and cabinets.  An                   
              understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1,                       
              which has been reproduced below.                                                                         
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
              appealed claims are:                                                                                     
              Anderson et al. (Anderson)               5,639,150                   Jun. 17, 1997                       
              Hsueh                                    5,664,380                   Sep.   9, 1997                      
              German Patent (Offenlegungsschrift)2 26 09 100 A1                    Sep.   8, 1977                      
                     (DT 100)                                                                                          
                     Claims 1-14, 16-20, 24 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                    
              anticipated by Anderson.                                                                                 
                     Claims 10, 11 and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being                          
              anticipated by Hsueh.                                                                                    
                     Claims 21 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated                     
              by the German reference (DT ‘100).                                                                       
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer                     
              (Paper No. 17) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and                   


                     2Our understanding of this document was obtained from a PTO translation, a copy of which is       
              enclosed.                                                                                                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007