Appeal 2006-2206
Application 10/743,380
screen [i.e., flexible net 52] is directly connected via surface to surface
contact with the side rails” (Answer 7).
Appellant counters that “claim [7] calls for the opposing ends of the
screen to be attached to the claimed side rails, not just the screen” (Reply Br.
2). Appellant maintains that the “opposing ends of the screen [i.e., Flynn’s
flexible net 52] are free and unattached” (Reply Br. 2).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 7 is anticipated by Flynn.
Flynn discloses that flexible net 52 is attached to vertical members 12
and 14 (col. 5, ll. 34-36). We note that a first opposing end of Flynn’s
flexible net is attached to vertical member 12 and the second opposing end is
attached to vertical member 14. Flynn discloses that vertical members 12
and 14 are pivotally attached to L-shaped horizontal members 16 and 18
(col. 5, ll. 13-16). Therefore, Flynn’s net is indirectly attached to members
16 and 18, i.e., the side rails.
The attachment limitation of the claim encompasses the indirect
attachment of Flynn. Appellant states in his Specification that, while pivot
pins (13) are shown as attaching the screen (17) to the side rails (1, 3), “other
modes of attachment could be used” (Specification, 12: 3-5). Appellant
provides an example that includes looping the screen end (19) around the
side rails (1, 3) “to form a loop without positive attachment to the [side]
rail[s]” (Specification 12: 5-9). From these disclosures, Appellant plainly
contemplates that “other modes of attachment” include those that attach the
screen (17) to the side rails (1, 3) “without positive [i.e., direct] attachment
to the [side] rail[s]” (Specification 12, 3-9).
From Flynn’s above-noted disclosures and Appellant’s disclosures in
his Specification, the Examiner’s position is reasonable that flexible net 52
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013