Appeal No. 2006-2064
Application 09/771,761
our opinion that Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to narrow the
scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no
basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed limitations
are present in the disclosure of Curtis, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, and 26, as well as dependent
claims 8-12, 16, 18, 21, and 22 not separately argued by Appellants, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2-4, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, and 29-31 in which the Taylor
reference is added to Curtis to address the claimed “subsequent installation”
and “first and second part” installation features, we sustain this rejection as
well. As alluded to by the Examiner (Answer, pages 7 and 8), Appellants’
arguments (Brief, pages 8 and 9; Reply Brief, pages 6 and 7) attacking
Taylor focus on the contention that Taylor does not disclose the
establishment of a valid order for component installation, a feature which,
for all of the reason discussed supra, we find to be present in the disclosure
of Curtis.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007