Appeal No. 2006-1292 Page 6
Application No. 10/314,742
respect to Shinozaki’s teachings and no arguments are presented against the
combinability of that as a modifying reference to the three references relied upon in the
first stated rejection. The same approach is followed at pages 2 and 3 of the Reply
Brief. Therefore, the rejection of dependent claims 15, 19 and 23 is also sustained.
In closing, we note in passing that it appears that some arguments made by
appellants in the Brief and Reply Brief relate to features that are problematic in nature
as to their recitation in independent claims 1, 16 and 20 on appeal. There is a repeated
use of recited elements “for” stated purposes but no positive present tense statement of
the purpose. The end of the claims recites the feature of “to permit connecting,” again a
feature not necessarily positively recited since it relates to a future act that may never
occur. Likewise with respect to the cover being secured in a closed position, the actual
language utilized is “to secure…, when in a closed position.” Again, this is not a positive
statement that the cover is ever in a closed position. Reciting claimed features in this
manner only enhances the meritorious value of the examiner’s rejection within 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007