Appeal No. 2006-1951 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/392,140
52), we find that the bottom surface of the shell bottom forms
the floor of the shell, in the same way as element 22 (outer
shell bottom) forms the floor of shell bottom.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants’ assertion (id.) that
shell wall 23 of cover 21 is not upstanding, because shell wall
17 extends in a perpendicular direction from shell bottom 16 in
the same manner as outer shell wall extends perpendicular to
shell bottom 22. In a similar fashion, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ assertion (brief, page 5) that tubular element 19 of
Wenning does not extend upwardly from the upstanding wall 23.
Because tubular element 14, as well as tubular element 19 extend
perpendicular to the bottom the shell, we find that the
peripheral frames 14 and 19 extend upwardly from the walls 17 and
23 of Wenning. Note: the orientation of the structure, in and
of itself, does not distinguish the structure from the prior art,
and we read the housing from the bottom of the structure,
irrespective of how the structure is oriented.
From all of the above, we find that the disclosure of
Wenning is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation of claim 10, and are not convinced of any error on
the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007