Appeal No. 2003-0240 Page 2
Application No. 09/435,507
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and reversed the examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have carefully considered the argument raised by the appellant in their request
for rehearing, however, that argument does not persuade us that our decision was in error
in any respect.
The sole argument (pp. 2-3) raised by the appellant is that claim 1, the only
independent claim in this application, specifies that the front face of the wall mount has "a
switch-engaging surface portion adapted to engage said switch operating member to open
said switch as said appliance is assembled onto said wall mount . . ." and that such a
construction is not shown by Andis. The appellant contends that the holder 17 of Andis
has faces (e.g., laterally spaced walls or surfaces 95 and 97) which are neither front faces
nor rear faces but are faces located on planes perpendicular to wall 13. The appellant
points out that the hair dryer of Andis must be turned sideways so that its off/on switch 21
engages the wall 95 which is in contrast to the appellant's construction.
In our view, the claimed limitation that the front face of the wall mount has "a switch-
engaging surface portion adapted to engage said switch operating member to open said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007