Appeal No. 2004-0376 Page 7
Application No. 09/457,286
Instead, claims 21 to 24 and 26 to 29 recite a "cabinet." In our view, the term "cabinet"
is readable on Killinger's cabin 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to
8, 10 to 14, 16 to 24 and 26 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Killinger is affirmed with respect to claims 21 to 24 and 26 to 29 but reversed with
respect to claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14 and 16 to 20.
The obviousness rejection based on Killinger
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 23 to 25, 29, 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Killinger.
In this rejection (final rejection, pp. 4-5), the examiner rejected claims 23 to 25,
29, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Killinger.1 The
examiner ascertained that while the limitations of claims 23 to 25, 29, 30 and 31 were
not taught by Killinger, the limitations of claims 23 to 25, 29, 30 and 31 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
1 The examiner refers to a number of references of record that have not been applied in the
rejection under appeal. These references will be given no consideration since they were not included in
the statement of the rejection. See Ex parte Raske, 28 USPQ2d 1304, 1305 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007