Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 7
Application No. 10/051,573
purposes of the prior art rejection that follows, we give “support means” its
broadest reasonable interpretation taking into account the corresponding structure
described in the specification for performing the recited function and equivalents
thereof. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As such, we interpret “support means” to be the supporting spar (20), as described
in the specification, and equivalents thereof, because the specification discloses
that the supporting spar (20) performs the functions of engaging the mounting
pathway, engaging the equipment cabinet, and it extends transversely between the
sides of the equipment cabinet.
Although we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reasons provided above, we nonetheless
agree with the examiner’s interpretation of the “means for” elements in claim 15
for purposes of our discussion of the following rejections.
II. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The examiner has rejected claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Whiten. With respect to independent claims 1, 14,
and 16, the examiner has determined that Whiten discloses an equipment cabinet
having a first side (14) and a second side (10) and defining an opening therein, a
first device (58, B) sized to be received by the device opening, the first device
defining a first mounting pathway therein, the first device including a chassis (58)
sized to receive a component (B) of the first device where at least a portion of the
chassis defines at least a portion of the first mounting pathway. The examiner has
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007