Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
Claims 26 and 30
Claims 26 and 30 require that the handle extends vertically
between the at least two spaced locations.8
The handles of Reussenzehn (figures 1, 3 and 4) and
van Berkel (figures 1 and 3) extend horizontally, and the
examiner provides no explanation as to why it would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
orient them vertically.
Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims 26 and 30
over Reussenzehn and over Reussenzehn in view of van Berkel.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and requires that the tray
body includes a recessed area extending between the at least two
locations at which the handle extends from the tray.
The appellant argues that the space between the legs of
Reussenzehn’s handle is not recessed but, rather, the surface of
the tray body is flush with the surrounding area (brief,
page 20). The tray protrusions to which Reussenzehn’s handle
are attached are part of the tray. Hence, the space between
them is a recessed area of the tray body.
because the claims in those rejections do not require a single-piece handle
or elimination of gaps and spaces.
8 Although claims 1 and 13 are of comparable scope, and their respective
dependent claims 5 and 26 are of comparable scope, claim 5, unlike claim 26,
is not rejected over Reussenzehn, alone or in combination with the other
references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007