Appeal No. 2004-2038
Application No. 09/681,778
that the anticipation rejection based upon the Grace, Sr. patent
is unsound. As we see it, appellants’ argument (main brief,
page 5 and reply brief, page 3) is at once not persuasive for the
simple reason that it addresses possible in-use factors that are
clearly distinct from the exterior panel per se now being
claimed. Thus, contrary to appellants’ point of view, we have
reached the conclusion that one skilled in the art would readily
comprehend that the panel of Grace, Sr. is capable of being
fixedly securable and includes slots that would permit relative
movement of a lower panel portion to an upper panel portion, as
now broadly claimed.
In summary, this panel of the Board has sustained each of
the anticipation rejections on appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007