Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Brief and the
Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, Appellant’s position is that
the screen panel shown in Figure 7b of Mitani is not generally flat as claimed and
does not comprise a plurality of fasteners projecting rearwardly from a flat screen
(Br. 10). Appellant points out that the edge walls of the front screen in Mitani
cannot be ignored as they truncate the rear surface and prevent it from being
coextensive with the front face of the screen panel (Br. 11). In response, the
Examiner argues that the claims do not preclude the fasteners being integrally
formed with the front wall of the screen (Answer 15) while the terms “generally
flat” and “substantially coextensive” merely require less than 100 percent flat and
coextensive (Answer 16). The Examiner concludes that even with the edge walls,
the remaining part of the screen panel in Mitani is generally flat with its front face
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013