Appeal No. 2004-0376 Page 6
Application No. 09/457,286
8, 10 to 14, 16 and 18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by van Elten
is reversed.
The anticipation rejection based on Killinger
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Killinger. We sustain the rejection of claims
21 to 24 and 26 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Killinger.
The appellants sole argument against this rejection (brief, pp. 15-16) is that
Killinger does not disclose a substantially enclosed cabinet. As set forth in this
rejection, the examiner believes (final rejection, p. 2) that the claimed "substantially
enclosed cabinet" is readable on Killinger's cabin 1.
After reviewing the disclosure of Killinger, we find ourselves in agreement with
the appellants that Killinger does not disclose a "substantially enclosed cabinet." As
shown and described, Killinger's cabin 1 comprises a three-dimensional frame and is
shaped like an open box or crate (column 7, lines 20-22). As such, Killinger's cabin 1 is
not a substantially enclosed cabinet as set forth in claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 20.
However, claims 21 to 24 and 26 to 29 do not recite a "substantially enclosed cabinet."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007