Appeal No. 2002-2341
Application 09/466,277
1) The examiner should consider whether a rejection of
claims 42 through 47 and 52 would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. More specifically, we note that there
does not appear to be a proper antecedent basis in claim 52 for
the “alignment tabs” of the second cardcage side as recited in
the last portions of the claim, since in line 9 of claim 52 the
second cardcage side is said to have “at least two alignment
guides,” not alignment tabs. As a further issue, the examiner
should determine if the “first and second airflow entrance
guides” of claim 44 attached to the first cardcage side are the
same as or different from the “airflow diverter” of claim 52
coupled to the first cardcage side for altering airflow through
the cardcage. The same problem appears to exist with regard to
the “first and second airflow exit guides” of claim 46 attached
to the second cardcage side and the “airflow diverter” of claim
52 coupled to the second cardcage side.
2) Given our comments above concerning the deficiencies of
Marks with respect to claim 51 on appeal and our observations
concerning the teachings of Howrilka, we are of the opinion that
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007