Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
review has led us to the following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner refers to the Office
action of March 7, 2003 regarding her position for this
rejection. The examiner states that claim 1 is indefinite
because it is unclear if appellant is attempting to claim the
subcombination of a “shelf unit with use of a wire rack”, recited
in the preamble, or the combination of a shelf unit and a wire
rack. The examiner also asserts that each claim “attempts to
define a claimed structure, the cleat or cleat section, by an
unclaimed structure, the elements and spacing of wire rack, which
is improper”. Office Action of March 7, 2003, page 2.
Appellant responds to this rejection on pages 6-12 of the
brief, and also in the reply brief. In the reply brief,
appellant indicates that he has filed an amendment in which all
positive recitations have been changed to functional recitations.
The examiner entered this amendment. See the Advisory Action
mailed January 3, 2005.
Upon our review of claim 1, we agree with appellant’s
statement made on page 7 of the brief that he is claiming a shelf
unit for use with a wire rack. The functional relationships are
self-evident (and therefore are not indefinite), as discussed
below.
Claim 1 recites that the shelf unit is for use with a wire
rack. The shelf unit comprises two components. Component a) is
an elongated member capable of transversely contacting the
support wires of a wire rack. Component b) is a cleat and the
cleat is sized to fit within one of the rectangular openings of a
wire rack when the cleat is placed over the rectangular opening.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007