Appeal No. 2001-1534
Application No. 08/997,713
into answer, page 3]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 1, appellants argue that cage 247 of Hobbs does
not include a plurality of adapter plate mounting features as
claimed. Appellants also argue that mounting plates 244 and 262
of Hobbs do not include a plurality of peripheral device mounting
features located on the adapter plate and allowing a plurality of
peripheral devices to be disposed thereon as claimed [brief,
pages 3-5]. The examiner responds by marking up drawings of
Hobbs and by noting that the peripheral devices of Hobbs are part
of an assemblage which includes a frame (247), peripheral devices
(43, 57, 241, 243 and 245) and adapter plates (244, 262) having
adapter plate mounting features thereon. The examiner finds that
it is this assemblage which she regards as the claimed peripheral
device [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellants respond that claim 1 does
not recite that the adapter plates have adapter plate mounting
features thereon, but rather, that the adapter plate includes a
plurality of peripheral device mounting features located on the
adapter plate. Appellants also note that the drawings marked up
by the examiner do not support the examiner’s position [reply
brief].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-29
because we agree with appellants’ arguments that the examiner’s
findings are not supported by the evidence of record. In the
rejection, the examiner identifies the frame as element 15 or 247
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007