Appeal No. 2005-0059 Page 3
Application No. 10/441,799
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
In the examiner’s view Mason discloses each and every element of the claimed
invention. In regard to the recitation in claim 1 of a “handle removably secured to the
wire members of the bottom wall” and “capable of being gripped by users to move the
rack assembly horizontally into and from the dishwasher”, the examiner states:
. . . the handle member (14) of the prior art contains all the
structural limitations as claimed by applicant and can
function as claimed i.e., able to perform the task of being
gripped to move a rack assembly, then the prior art is viewed
as properly anticipating the claimed invention.... [answer at
page 4].
The appellant argues that article retainer 14 of Mason is not a handle because it
is not positioned to be a handle. Appellant states that when the rack is empty, retainer
14 resides along the bottom of the rack preventing its use as a handle.
We agree with the examiner that the retainer 14 is a handle as broadly claimed
because it is capable of being gripped to move a rack assembly. In addition, although
the appellant is correct that retainer 14 is pivotal between a position in which it is nearly
upright and a position where it lays flat along the bottom of the dishwasher rack, in our
view the retainer 14 is still capable of being gripped by a user to move the rack into and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007