Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 11
Application No. 10/651,205
With regard to claim 30, the appellants argue that the combination of
Rinderer and Harris does not teach or suggest “a second mounting surface forming
a second angle greater than 90 degrees to create a compression fit with a second
support when installed. (Appellants’ Brief, p. 15). For the same reasons provided
above with respect to claim 7, we find that Rinderer clearly discloses a second
mounting surface forming an angle greater than 90 degrees and inherently
discloses that the second mounting surface creates a compression fit with a second
support when installed. As such, we sustain the rejection of claim 30.
The appellants did not separately argue the patentability of the remaining
rejected dependent claims 20 and 21, except to state generally that these claims
recite “additional features” that distinguish them over the prior art. (Appellants’
Brief, p. 14) Finding no separate basis for patentability of these dependent claims,
we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 21.
Rejection of claims 6 and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner has determined that Fast shows the use of score lines to
remove a portion to adjust to a desired length. The examiner found that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
have provided the device shown by Rinderer (claim 6) or shown by the
combination of Rinderer and Harris (claims 18-21) with score lines “to adjust the
length of the mounting surfaces to facilitate the use of the device and its
versatility.” (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 4-5). The examiner argues that Fast is
analogous art because it pertains to a bracket and means for adjusting its length.
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 7).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007