Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 18
Application No. 10/051,573
spars (26, 28) with spacer sleeves (52) that snap over the support spars. Robertson
teaches that the sleeves (52) are located on opposite sides of each track and have an
outer diameter substantially greater than the diameter of the apertures (40, 44) so
that the sleeves (52) function as spacers for maintaining proper space between the
tracks (88, 90) as well as means for locking the tracks (88, 90) at proper positions
on the transverse members (26, 28). (Robertson, column 5, lines 15-26). There is
no teaching in Robertson to locate the spacer sleeve between a track and a side of
the device opening to hold the track against the other side of the device opening.
Thus, even if the teachings of Whiten and Robertson are combined, the
combination fails to show all of the limitations of claims 10 and 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5, and we reverse
the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, for the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Whiten, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4, 12, and
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Whiten, and we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 6,
10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Whiten in view of
Robertson.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007