Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
wall surface is inclined at an angle larger than the angle of said first wall
surface, with respect to the horizontal." We assume that the upper portion of
the surface 68 near the surface portion 70 in Brahmbhatt corresponds to the
"second wall surface" for consideration of the next subissue, although we
find in connection with Issue (3) that it does not perform the function of
limiting horizontal movement.
(3)
We interpret the limitation of "said second wall surface extending
upward from an upper edge of said first wall surface" in claim 1 to mean that
the second wall surface is in contact with (it is "extending . . . from") the
upper edge of the first wall surface and that the second wall surface is at
least partly directly above (it is "upward from") the upper edge of the first
wall surface when the tray is horizontal. Assuming, arguendo, that the
upper portion of surface 68 near surface 70 in Brahmbhatt corresponds to the
second wall surface, this surface is not "extending upward from" an upper
edge of the first wall surface because is laterally (horizontally) disposed with
respect to the side edge of surface 69.1, and is not above the surface 69.1.
Accordingly, Brahmbhatt does not disclose the structural relationship of
"said second wall surface extending upward from an upper edge of said first
wall surface." The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-11 is reversed.
There is no support for the "upper edge" locations proposed by the
Requester and relied on by the Examiner. In the first annotated Figure 7 in
the Comment of the 3rd Party Requestor on the First Office Action and
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013