Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 15
Application No. 10/051,573
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and 3, because the Examiner
has failed to show where Whiten discloses a “channel member.” The specification
defines the channel members (56, 58) as being structures separate from the chassis
(48, 79), and which, together with a bottom surface of the chassis, define the
mounting pathways (18, 38). (See Specification, page 14, line 21 – page 15, line
19 and page 19, lines 2-20). The examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in
Whiten for the teaching of such a separate structure that is provided in the chassis.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 19, because the
Examiner has failed to show where Whiten discloses the first mounting pathway
being located about the fore-to-aft center of gravity location. It is not clear from
the figures where the fore-to-aft center of gravity would be located, and the
location would shift depending on the number of bottles held in the tracks.
Further, the Examiner did not point to any specific disclosure in Whiten about
locating the first mounting pathway at about the fore-to-aft center of gravity
location.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 12, because the examiner has
failed to show where Whiten discloses the first and second devices secured to one
another. The examiner contends that the devices are secured to one another via the
support spar. We disagree with this reading of Whiten. Although it teaches in
column 4, lines 40-42 that the tracks (58) are “interconnected” through the support
spars (54, 56), Whiten fails to disclose whether the tracks (58) are attached to the
support spars (54, 56). As such, there is no explicit teaching in Whiten that the
tracks (58) are “secured” to one another via the support spars (54, 56). Further,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007