Appeal No. 2005-2163
Application No. 10/166,002
The cleat is also extendable downward within the rectangular
opening sufficiently to bring the elongated member in a resting
position on the support wires.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness) rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 as
being anticipated by Conforti
We consider claims 1, 2 and 5 in this rejection, according
to appellant’s aforementioned grouping.
We are in full agreement with the examiner’s position
regarding this rejection, as set forth on page 3 of the Office
Action mailed March 7, 2003. We add the following for emphasis
only.
As an initial matter, as determined above, claim 1 is
definite regarding the functional relationships recited. That
is, the claimed shelf unit for use with a wire rack comprises
components a) and b) that have a functional relationship with a
wire rack. This does not mean that a wire rack is a component of
the claim.1 In this light, we provide the following discussion.
As correctly stated by the examiner on page 4 of the Answer,
the courts have established that a prior art structure that is
capable of performing the intended use recited in the claim,
meets the claim. That is, a recitation with respect to the
manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed
does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art
apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of that claimed.
See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 1647, 1648 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1 We have fully reviewed appellant’s comments made on pages 8-12 of the
brief. Appellant argues that the wire rack is a required element of
the claims, but we are not so persuaded. As discussed, supra, the
recitations regarding the wire rack give functional meaning to the
claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007