Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejections of
claims 27, 28 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection of claim 24.
Appellants argue, on pages 8 and 9 of the brief, that Newhouse does not
teach the claim 24 limitation of “[a] label for use in equipment having a bezel…
said label having a sleeve … wherein said sleeve is mounted independent from
said bezel.”
The examiner’s response, on page 7 of the answer, is similar to that
provided regarding claim 23.
As with claim 23, we disagree with the examiner’s claim interpretation.
Unlike claim 23, we do consider claim 24 to be definite. Claim 24 recites “said
label having a sleeve for controlling the maximum travel of said label distal
portion relative to the front surface of said bezel, wherein said sleeve is mounted
independent from said bezel,” the bezel of the equipment is recited in the
preamble of the claim as a part of the equipment. On page 3 of the answer, the
examiner equates Newhouse’s slot, item 24 with the claimed sleeve. We do not
find that Newhouse teaches that the holder 12, which includes the slot 24, is
removable from the chair, without removing the label from the chair. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejection of claims 29 through 31.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007