Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 3
Application No. 10/651,205
support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief (filed April 8, 2005) and reply
brief (filed August 3, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the examiner has determined that
Rinderer discloses all of the elements of the claim. Specifically, the examiner
found that Rinderer shows a brace assembly for supporting an outlet box
comprising a brace (21) having a base and mounting surfaces (51) extending from
the base at an angle greater than 90 degrees, as shown in Figure 2. (Examiner’s
Answer, p. 3). The examiner contends that the brace assembly of Rinderer
provides a compression fit between the studs, and that the strength of such fit
would depend on the distance between the studs. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 6).
The appellants agree that Rinderer shows a brace assembly including a brace
with base and mounting surfaces that extend from the base at an angle greater than
90 degrees. The appellants argue, however, that Rinderer does not show a
mounting surface adapted to create a compression fit with the support when
installed. (Appellants’ Brief, p. 10). The appellants argue that because the
mounting surfaces (51) of Rinderer are not shown in contact with the supports (S)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007