Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 6
Application No. 10/651,205
their appeal brief, that Rinderer does not disclose or suggest a fastener hole in the
first mounting surface (51).1 (Appellants’ Brief, p. 14).
We find that Rinderer discloses fastener holes (55) in the mounting surface
(51) as shown in Figure 4. Specifically, Rinderer describes that the extensions (51)
have fold lines (FL1 and FL2) so that the brace can be adjusted to accommodate
electrical boxes of different depths. As shown in Figure 4, if a relatively deep box
(B) is to be attached, the extensions (51) are bent at the first fold line (FL1) to form
fastening flaps (53). In this case, the portion of extension (51) between first fold
line (FL1) and second fold line (FL2) lies adjacent to the side surface of support
(S) and, as such, fastening holes (55) are located in the mounting surface (51).
(Rinderer, col. 4, lines 39-56).
The appellants further argue that claim 3 is patentable because it includes the
limitation of claim 1, and Rinderer does not disclose a compression fit. Since we
have sustained the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Rinderer, the appellants
cannot rely on this argument for patentability of claim 3. As such, we hold that
Rinderer anticipates claim 3.
Dependent claim 5 recites a first flange that extends perpendicularly
outwardly from the first mounting surface and is adapted to be received on a lower
surface of the first support member. We agree with the examiner and find that
1 The appellants are cautioned that a statement that merely points out what a claim recites will
not be considered an argument for patentability of the claim. See M.P.E.P. § 1205.02(vii) (Rev.
3 August 2005). Nonetheless, in the present case, we treated the claims as separately argued in
our decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007