Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
when the insert is positioned in the cavity” (answer, page 8).
While there may be many possibilities as to how the envelopes
(30) could be affixed to the individual spring member appendages
(22) of the disc storage container in Lay, we do not see that Lay
teaches any particular way to secure the envelopes (30) and
spring appendages (22) together, and certainly does not teach
cooperating securement members or mating mechanisms like those
required in appellants’ claims 49, 52 through 56 and 58 through
61 for securing an insert with the housing member wall.
In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 49, 52 through 56 and 58 through
61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Lay.3
As for the rejection of claims 50, 51 and 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lay in view of Yeh or
Kaszubinski, the examiner has asserted that it would have been
obvious in view of Yeh or Kaszubinski “to substitute the tenon
and recess mechanism [of one of those secondary references] for
3 The issue of whether it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to
provide the envelopes (30) of Lay with securement members or mating
mechanisms of the type broadly set forth in appellants’ above-noted
claims is not before us in this appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007