Appeal No. 2004-1315
Application No. 09/815,191
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Klubitschko 4,366,968 Jan. 04, 1983
Renaud-Goud 5,551,721 Sep. 03, 1996
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that there is
no antecedent basis for “the first [90a] and third [90c] legs-
sections” in lines 1-2 of claim 20, and for the phrase “the
second leg-section [90b]” in line 2 of claim 20.
Upon our review of pages 1-32 of appellant’s brief, we
cannot find any argument rebutting this 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection.
We therefore, pro forma, affirm this rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-20
We refer to pages 3-6 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in this rejection and we also refer to pages
6-8 of the answer regarding the examiner’s rebuttal to
appellant’s arguments regarding this rejection.
To summarize, the examiner’s position is that Klubitschko
teaches the use of a brake, including a support member 14
(Figure 2) having a predetermined number of vertical centered
apertures (Figure 1, not labeled). Answer, pages 3-4.
The examiner states that within an edge of the support
member 14 is a support hinge member 16, shown in Figure 2. This
corresponds with appellant’s component a of claim 7. The
examiner states that rotating within the support hinge member 16
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007