Appeal No. 2004-2038
Application No. 09/681,778
Directing our attention to the support strip 18' of King
(Fig. 13), as an example, it is quite clear to this panel of the
Board that, as broad claim 1 requires, strip 18' is an exterior
panel per se having upper and lower portions, with the upper
portion being fixedly securable via holes 63, and with slots 62
permitting relative movement of the lower portion (hooked-shaped
tabs 36') to the upper portion.
As was the case with the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5),
the argument of appellants (main brief, page 4, and reply brief,
pages 2 and 3) fails to persuade us of error in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants assert that King does not
teach or suggest an upper portion fixedly securable wherein the
plurality of slots permit relative movement of lower and upper
portions. As explained above, broad claim 1 reads on the King
disclosure. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that one skilled
in this art would appreciate that the slots 62 taught by King
inherently permit relative movement of a lower portion relative
to an upper portion. Counsel’s unsupported argument does not
rebut the above determination. It is worthy of pointing out that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007