Appeal 2006-2206
Application 10/743,380
is indirectly attached to L-shaped horizontal members 16 and 18 (i.e., side
rails) via vertical members 12 and 14 and that this form of attaching is
encompassed by the claim language. Moreover, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that “opposing ends of the screen [i.e., flexible net 52]
are free and unattached” (Reply Br. 2). Flynn clearly discloses that two
opposing ends of flexible net 52 are attached to vertical members 12 and 14
(col. 5, ll. 34-36).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
argued claim 7 and non-argued claims 9 and 10.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER FLYNN IN VIEW OF CRANE
CLAIM 8
Appellant argues lack of motivation for combining Crane’s pivotal
connection with Flynn’s single member cross bar (Br. 17). Appellant
contends that Crane does not disclose “each segment has one end pivotally
attached to the side rail with each of the other ends of the segments attached
together” as claim 8 requires (Br. 17). Appellant determines that Crane uses
a “totally different member movement than that contemplated by the
invention and Flynn” (Br. 17).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 8 over
Flynn in view of Crane.
Claim 8 requires, in relevant part, that the “other ends of each segment
[be] pivotally attached together so that the cross member segments and side
rails can fold up.” As shown in Appellant’s Figure 1, the cross member
segments 7 and 9 are pivotally connected via pivot pin 24 so that the user
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013