Appeal No. 2007-0392
Application No. 10/427,733
Because claim 21 encompasses the presence of additional elements in the
device, however, these additional elements do not negate Wentzel’s
anticipation of claim 21.
Appellant also argues that Wentzel’s arcuate members are not
“monolithically formed,” but we disagree with Appellant’s definition of that
term. Wentzel’s members reasonably appear to be “monolithically formed
as a single unit,” as we have interpreted that phrase. See Figure 1 and col. 1,
ll. 45-47 (“the main members . . . may be readily molded of an inexpensive
transparent plastic”).
The Examiner argues that Wentzel’s two arcuate members meet claim
21’s engagement limitation because, “as clearly shown in figures 1, 4, and 5,
the two arcuate members rest directly on top of each other such that center
portion 32 directly engages center portion 22 of the other tray.” (Answer 6.)
As discussed supra, because Wentzel’s arcuate members are adjustable in
relation to each other, and because member B has a curved tongue portion
31 that fits into a correspondingly shaped recess in member A, we agree
with the Examiner that Wentzel’s two monolithically formed arcuate
members directly engage each other to provide relative rotation, even
without the screws and nuts. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Wentzel meets all of the limitations recited in claim 21.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 21 over Wentzel.
Claims 22, 27, 28, 31, 41, and 42 fall with claim 21 because they were
argued in the same grouping as claim 21 with respect to the rejection over
Wentzel. (Br. 5.)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013