Appeal No. 2001-0045 Page 4
Application No. 09/103,347
Claims 1-14, 16-20, 24 and 27 stand rejected as being anticipated by Anderson.
Claim 1 recites a rack comprising a skeleton structure having spaced vertical
uprights supplemented by distinct spaced equipment mounting structures attached to
the skeleton structure and extending along the vertical uprights and constituting side
wall structures “of a mounting rack interior space in lateral extension of said vertical
uprights” (emphasis added) and including means for mounting the equipment. In
arriving at the conclusion that Anderson anticipates the structure recited in the
appellants’ claim 1, the examiner has found that Anderson’s “mounting channels 20"
correspond to the spaced equipment mounting structures because they extend laterally,
that is, “to the left” of vertical upright 12, as shown in Figure 2 (Answer, page 3). The
appellants argue, however, that Anderson’s channel members 20 are not in lateral
extension to the vertical uprights, “but rather . . . [are] spaced inwardly . . . from both
sides of Anderson’s modular enclosure,” as opposed to the sides 31 (Brief, page 9).
We first point out with regard to this issue that “in lateral extension” is not defined
in the specification and does not appear in the original claims. In the embodiment of
the invention shown in Figure 1, it appears that the outer face of each equipment
support structure is coplanar with the outer face of the partial enclosure surrounding the
vertical upright with which it is associated. However, the appellants have not taken the
position that “in lateral extension” is limited to this relationship. This being the case, we
look to the common applicable definition of “lateral,” which is “coming from the side,”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007