Appeal No. 2006-3016
Application No. 10/212,240
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4, Appellant merely
relies on the same arguments presented for base claim 1 (Br. 13). For the same
reasons stated above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4
over Mitani and Scheve.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 16, 17, 23, and 24,
we note that Appellant’s arguments focus on what the claimed front screen cannot
include, such as integral tabs or fasteners (oral hearing; Br. 14). The Examiner
apparently takes tabs 30 of Whitelaw as parts of viewing screen 12 (Answer 19)
wherein screw-like fasteners connect the front screen to the frame (Whitelaw, Fig.
5A, col. 5, ll. 7-12). Based on the breadth of the claimed subject matter we
discussed above, we find that tabs 30 or similar extensions are integral parts of the
front screen in Whitelaw. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fasteners inserted in
the apertures in front screen tabs of Whitelaw for connecting the front screen to the
cabinet. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 5, 16, 17, 23 and 24
over Mitani and Whitelaw is sustained.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013