Appeal No. 2001-1682
Application No. 08/837,668
This claim interpretation is consistent with appellant's
arguments as presented in the brief and reply brief.
Having construed the claims on appeal as being limited to a
base plate and "an attachment block" as disclosed in the present
application, we are in agreement with appellant that Rice '140
does not disclose or teach any such structure. More
particularly, given our narrow interpretation of the structure
set forth in the claims on appeal, we must disagree with the
examiner's determination that the eyelet (62) seen in Figure 6 of
Rice '140 can be read as an "attachment block," since the eyelet
(62) clearly does not include a base and two parallel side plates
which support a pin therebetween, and wherein the base is
attached to a surface mountable base plate. Nor does anything in
the Ludwig patent disclose or teach a structure like that
required in appellant's claims on appeal (i.e., a securing means
in the form of a base plate and an "attachment block").
Given the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that the
examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness, and
for that reason we must refuse to sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 9, 11 through 14 and 17 through
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007