Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
be lacking in Marks. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 33 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will also
not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 52, 44
and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marks
in view of Howrilka and Watanabe. In this instance, the examiner
has recognized (final rejection, page 6) that Marks “does not
disclose providing the cardcage sides with flanges and tabs, nor
alignment slots on the end plates.” To account for these
differences the examiner turns to Howrilka, urging that Howrilka
discloses (in Fig. 5) alignment tabs (66O) on cardcage bars (22O)
which engage with alignment slots (64O) on the end plate (14O),
and flanges (152) on the cardcage bar secured to end plate (14O)
by fasteners (156). On the basis of the collective teachings of
Marks and Howrilka, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to provide the cardcage sides or walls (13,
14) of marks with flanges and tabs and the end plates with
alignment slots, in light of the teachings of Howrilka, in order
to facilitate alignment of the various structural components
before fastening them together.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007