Appeal No. 2005-0340 8
Application No. 10/098,105
For the above reasons, the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 through 18, 21, 23,
25, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sands will not be
sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 22, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sands. As noted by appellants in the brief (page
10), because these are dependent claims they include the recitations and limitations of
independent claims 16 and 23 from which they ultimately depend. Given our disposition
above of the examiner’s rejections of independent claims 16 and 23 based on Sands, it
follows that the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 22, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Sands will likewise not be sustained.1
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 through 18, 21 through 23, 25,
26, 28, 30 through 34, 37 through 41, 43 and 45 through 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sands in view of Ho, it appears to be the examiner’s
position that since Ho discloses the concept of latchable cover panels (2, 4, 6)
associated with a rectangular base frame (1) of a computer housing, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention that the
1We additionally note that in treating claims 22, 30 and 31 on pages 6 and 7 of1
the answer, the examiner has again provided no evidence to support the various
assertions of obviousness and has therefore again failed to set forth a prima facie case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007