Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
vertically downward into the rack). In that regard, we
additionally agree with the examiner that each of the walls (13,
14) of Marks has “a plurality of generally parallel and spaced
apart card guide attachment locations” intermediate adjacent sets
of airflow openings (21, 22) in each of the walls and aligned
with respective openings (19) in the back flanges (18) of the
respective walls, as well as first and second flanges (17, 18) as
set forth in claim 51.4 In addition, we agree with the examiner
that the end walls (8, 9) of Marks cardcage generally correspond
to appellants’ first and second end plates that are ultimately
aligned with and attached to the first and second cardcage
sides/walls (13, 14), and that the plug-in receptacle connectors
(7) of Marks generally correspond to appellants’ “backplane” of
claim 51.
Where the examiner’s anticipation rejection fails is in not
treating the requirement in claim 51 on appeal that the first and
4 Like the examiner, we have given the language “a plurality
of generally parallel and spaced apart card guide attachment
locations” its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
appellants’ disclosure of the alternative embodiment set forth on
page 12, lines 1-5, of the specification and as defined in claim
34, which depends from claim 51, i.e., that the claim language
merely defines locations on the sides/walls designated to be card
guide areas of the cardcage when in final form.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007