Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 depends upon claim 14.
We affirmed the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Fumero. We also agree with the examiner that
Fumero teaches that plate 30 is removable. See Figure 7 and
page 9, second full paragraph, of Fumero.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fumero. However, we
affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fumero.
V. The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tabler
On page 3 of the Office Action of Paper No. 7, the
examiner’s position is that Tabler’s insert 36 comprises two
bottom plates 40 and 50, and that, although the method of
fastening these plates to member 42 is not specified, well-known
techniques include riveting, which requires slots for the
rivets. The examiner concludes that therefore the claimed two
bottom plates having slots formed therein are obvious.
Beginning on page 13 of the brief, appellant objects to the
fact that the examiner previously indicated the allowability of
claims 8 and 9. Appellant further argues that Tabler does not
support the examiner’s conjecture that the plates could be
attached by rivets. Appellant states that welding (versus
rivoting) is also a known means of attaching plates. Appellant
argues that even if a rivet was used, a rivet usually is placed
in holes, not slots. Third, appellant argues that the bottom
wall 40 would not have slots formed therein. We agree with
appellant’s position for the following reasons.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007