Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 and claims 24 and 30 as being unpatentable over Kelley in view of Brown
2 and Douhet.
3 The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
4 Examiner's Answer (mailed October 20, 2004) and the Supplemental
5 Examiner's Answer (mailed April 8, 2005). Appellants present opposing
6 arguments in Appellants’ Brief (filed August 24, 2004) and Reply Brief
7 (filed December 20, 2004).
8
9 ISSUES2
10 The first issue presented in this appeal is whether the “preinstalled”
11 utility or utilities limitation in independent claims 1, 14, 27, 32, and 35
12 distinguishes over the wiring routed through chases in Kelley’s work space
13 management system (Br. 7-8). A second issue related to the first issue is
14 whether the language “for installation in a hotel room, resort, hospital,
15 apartment building or residential structure” in the preamble of Appellants’
16 claims gives life and meaning to the claim term “preinstalled” (Br. 9).
17 A third issue is whether Kelley discloses a “stowable” work surface as
18 recited in claims 14 and 32 (Br. 8, 13).
2 An Examiner’s decision not to enter an amendment after final rejection is a
petitionable matter, not an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c) and 1201. Accordingly, we
will not review the issue raised by Appellants on page 3 of the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013