Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 13
Application No. 10/051,573
having a second mounting pathway and a second chassis sized to receive at least
one component of the second device, the second device being mounted adjacent
the first device. Despite the appellants’ position that this claim is independently
patentable, the appellants do not separately argue the reasons for patentability of
this dependent claim. Rather, they rely on their arguments for patentability of
independent claim 1. For the reasons provided above for sustaining the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 9, we also affirm the rejection of claim 11.
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 13, which
depends from claim 11 and further requires that the second mounting pathway is
substantially aligned with the first mounting pathway. The appellants argue that
Whiten does not disclose a device having a chassis and also fails to disclose a
second device having a second mounting pathway. (Appellants’ Brief, p. 14). For
the reasons provided above for claim 1, we disagree with the appellants’ position
that Whiten does not disclose a device having a chassis. We further find that
Whiten discloses, as shown in Figure 1, a second device (58, B) having a second
chassis (58) and situated adjacent the first device (58, B), where the adjacent
devices each have mounting pathways that are substantially aligned with each
other.
We also sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 17, which
depends from claim 16 and further requires that the first mounting pathway is
located in the chassis so that the support spar does not extend downwardly beyond
a bottom surface of the first device. We find that the support spar (54) in Whiten,
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007