Appeal No. 2006-1325
Application No. 10/163,610
1 Appellants additionally argue Kelley does not anticipate claim 14, or
2 the claims depending from claim 14, because Kelley does not disclose a
3 “stowable” desk, a video display, an armoire or a closet as called for in these
4 claims (Br. 8). The Examiner contends the desktop 20 (Kelley’s Fig. 2) is
5 “stowable” in the sense that it can be removed from the wall and stowed
6 (Answer 9). The Examiner’s position seems reasonable, as Appellants have
7 not described or defined “stowable” in any manner that would require
8 anything more than capability to be stowed or stored. Moreover, Kelley’s
9 CRT display unit (col. 9, l. 10) is a video display and thus meets the amenity
10 limitation in claim 14. Appellants’ arguments thus also fail to demonstrate
11 the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-18, 20-22, and 26 as being
12 anticipated by Kelley. The rejection is sustained as to these claims.
13 Appellants contend that Kelley does not anticipate claim 27 because
14 Kelley’s utilities do not “[extend] through said frame” as required by the
15 claim. Specifically, Appellants urge that claim 27 requires that the utility lie
16 completely within the framework of the prefabricated wall (Br. 10). We find
17 no such requirement in claim 27. Appellants cite the disclosure in the
18 paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 of the Specification as making clear that
19 “extending through said frame” means the utilities lie completely within the
20 frame and are connected to an outside source (Reply 3). We find no such
21 definition of “extending through said frame” in the cited paragraph. In any
22 event, Kelley’s wiring is connected, as discussed above, via energy
23 distribution blocks 100, to an outside source. As illustrated in Kelley’s Figs.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013