Appeal No. 2005-0059 Page 4
Application No. 10/441,799
out of the dishwasher. For example, if the crossbar of retainer 14 gripped in an
underhand fashion, the forearm of the user would rest on the structure of the rack and
prevent the retainer 14 from pivoting completely downward thereby facilitating the
movement of the rack into and out of the dishwasher.
Appellant also argues that the retainer 14 is not removable. Appellant directs our
attention to the embodiment depicted in Figure 4 in which the retainer 14 is attached to
the wire 11 by loop 17 and states that the retainer 14 is not removable except through
destruction.
While it may be true that the retainer depicted in Figure 4 is not removable, the
retainer 14 of the embodiment depicted in Figure 5 is removable. Mason’s Figure 5
depicts an attaching portion 26 which provides a loose connection between retainer 14
and wire 11 facilitating removal of retainer 14 without destruction. Therefore, Mason
does disclose a removable handle.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of the examiner as to
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2 through 5 and 19
through 25 as these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (brief at page 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007