Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
wherein said support structure is mounted independent from said bezel.”
Appellants argue that if assembly 30 is the claimed bezel, the card is not
supported separately from the bezel as the lugs 58 prevent the card from being
removed.
In response, on page 8 of the answer, the examiner states, “the bezel is
not part of the claimed invention.”
We disagree with the examiner’s claim interpretation. Claim 12 recites a
“device comprising; a label operative for moving in and out of a bezel arranged
on a periphery of said computer equipment, ... at least one support structure for
supporting said label both when said label is within said computer equipment and
pulled out from said computer equipment , wherein said support structure is
mounted independent from said bezel.” Thus, we find that claim 12 does recite
that the computer equipment contains a bezel and that the label support structure
is mounted independent of the bezel. The examiner has not identified in either
the statement of rejection, on pages 5 and 6 of the answer, or the response to
arguments, on pages 6 through 9 of the answer, which elements of Fox
correspond to the claimed bezel. We do not find any structure in Fox, which
corresponds to the claimed bezel, which is mounted independently of the label
support structure. Accordingly, we will now sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 12 through 15, 17, 19, 20 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rejection of claims 32 and 33.
Appellants argue, on page 12 of the answer, that Fox does not teach the
claim 32 limitation of “a modifiable label containing information pertaining to at
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007