Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
spring-loaded latch. Accordingly, we find ample evidence to support the
examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Rejection of claim 17.
Appellant argues on page 18 of the brief that claim 17 is similar in scope
to claim 13 and also recites a wheeled cart.
As stated supra we find that the examiner has provided ample evidence to
support the rejection of claim 13 and ample evidence to support the finding of
motivation to modify Reynolds to include wheels. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Rejection of claim 19.
Appellant argues, on page 19 of the brief, claim 19 requires a releasing
latch mechanism to free an auxiliary burner unit attached to the cart side wall that
this is not taught or rendered obvious by Reynolds and Harneit.
We concur with appellant. Claim 19 includes the limitation “ a releasing a
latch mechanism to free an auxiliary burner unit attached to a cart side wall in a
first operative position thereof, said auxiliary burner unit comprising said auxiliary
burner.” On page 5 of the answer, the examiner finds that Reynolds teaches a
spring-loaded latch in figure 6. As stated supra we find that this teaching meets
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007