Appeal No. 2001-0045 Page 8
Application No. 09/103,347
upright, and first and second extensions extending from the lateral extensions and
“engaging” respectively first and second sides of the vertical uprights.
As we understand this rejection, it is the examiner’s position that this structure
reads on the G-shaped corner posts shown in Figure 3 of DT ‘100. We do not agree.
First of all, the examiner is considering the stumps 6 shown extending from the upper
and lower shelves in Figure 2 to be the vertical extensions recited in the claim, and the
corner posts to be the partial enclosure, which in our view is not a proper reading, as
we stated above with regard to similar circumstances in the rejection based upon
Hsueh. Second, the rejection is defective even if the examiner’s labeling of
components is accepted, for the reference does not establish that the corner posts 4,
which are the elements that have the C or G-shaped cross-section (translation, page 6;
Figures 3 and 4), when installed over the C-shaped stumps extending from the top and
bottom shelves (Figure 2), are spaced along their lateral sides from the sides of the
stumps, as is required by the claim. This being the case, the subject matter recited in
the claim does not read on the reference, and the rejection of claim 21 cannot be
sustained. It follows that the rejection of dependent claim 28 also is not sustainable.
New Rejection By The Board
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new
rejection:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007