Ex Parte Diaz et al - Page 2



             Appeal No. 2006-1554                                                   Page 2                     
             Application No. 10/369,819                                                                           
                                               BACKGROUND                                                         
                    The appellants’ invention relates to method for replacing a side panel                        
             member of a casing of a computer.  Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of                   
             the subject matter on appeal.  A copy of all of the claims on appeal can be found in                 
             the appendix to the appellants’ brief.                                                               
                          1.    A method of replacing a side panel member of a                                    
                                 casing of a computer comprising:                                                 
                                 positioning the computer with a normally hidden                                  
                          bottom surface portion thereof exposed; and                                             
                                 pushing a push button on the normally hidden                                     
                          bottom surface portion.                                                                 
                    The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:                        
                     Miyai et al. (Miyai)                 5,139,319           Aug. 18, 1992                       
                     Hrehor, Jr. et al. (Hrehor)          6,054,662           Apr. 25, 2000                       
                    The following rejections are before us for review.                                            
                1. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by                     
                    Hrehor.                                                                                       
                2. Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                       
                    over Hrehor in view of Miyai.                                                                 
                    Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                    
             examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the                          
             examiner's answer (mailed November 28, 2005) for the examiner's complete                             
             reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed November                  
             8, 2005) and reply brief (filed March 29, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments.                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007