Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 17
Application No. 10/145,226
The anticipation rejection based on Jacques '420
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 14, 25, 26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being clearly anticipated by Jacques '420 but not the rejection of claim 31.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 12-14) that Jacques '420 does disclose the
following limitations:
(1) opposed sidewalls having "a central portion with a substantially smooth,
non-apertured inner surface for contacting the object and reducing force thereagainst''
as set forth in claim 12;
(2) opposed sidewalls having "a plurality of apertures around the periphery thereof
surrounding the central portion" as set forth in claim 14;
(3) a base having a plurality of upstanding corner members each having "a contoured
surface" and the opposed side walls having a second portion having "a complementary
contour for mating with a corresponding contoured surface of the upstanding corner
member" as set forth in claim 25;
(4) opposed sidewalls having a "central portion having a substantially smooth,
non-apertured inner surface'' as set forth in claim 28;
(5) a plurality of apertures in the peripheral portion as set forth in claim 29; and
(6) a curved raised potion in the base as set forth in claim 31.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007