Appeal No. 2004-2384
Application No. 10/161,365
“disengageable fastener” or “removable fastener” or would have
caused the attachment to be “removably attached.”
Appellant argues that claims 10 and 16 require the attachment
to have a generally planar mounting surface that is located in a
parallel facing position to the mounting platform while the
mounting plates 64 disclosed by Desnoyers are L-shaped brackets
which are not a planar surface (Brief, page 5). This argument is
not well taken. As correctly noted by the examiner, claim 16 does
not recite or require that the mounting surface be planar or in a
parallel facing position to the mounting platform (Answer, page 5).
As also correctly noted by the examiner, the L-shaped bracket
disclosed by Desnoyers does not correspond to the mounting platform
of the claims on appeal but merely holds the “seating platform 22"
in place (id.). See the mounting platform attached to bracket 64
as shown in the Figures of Desnoyers.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has prima facie established that every
limitation of claim 15 has been described by Desnoyers within the
meaning of section 102(b). Since appellant’s arguments are not
sufficient to overcome this prima facie case, we affirm the
examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and claims 10-13 and 16-18 which
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007