Ex Parte Greenside et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-0470                                                                               
                Application 09/976,997                                                                         
                                                                                                              
                                       STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                                   
                      Appellants invented a keyed filler panel assembly used in conjunction                    
                with computer chassis structures.  Filler panels are typically used to enclose                 
                or seal off unused slots of the computer chassis.  According to the invention,                 
                the filler panel assembly includes a locating element coupled to the filler                    
                panel body.  The locating element orients the filler panel body with respect                   
                to the chassis such that an interference generating movement of the filler                     
                panel body is reduced.  As a result, gaps between respective filler panels are                 
                more uniform, thus ensuring that adequate space is available for other filler                  
                panels.1  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                                             
                      1. A keyed filler panel assembly comprising:                                             
                      a filler panel body; and                                                                 
                      a locating element coupled to said filler panel body, said locating                      
                element orienting said filler panel body with respect to a computer chassis                    
                such that interference generating movement of said filler panel body is                        
                reduced.                                                                                       
                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                        
                unpatentability:                                                                               
                Jones                      US 3,986,544              Oct. 19, 1976                             
                Radloff                    US 5,575,546              Nov. 19, 1996                             

                      The Examiner’s rejections are as follows:                                                
                   1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated                    
                      by Radloff.                                                                              

                                                                                                              
                1 See generally Specification 1:10 - 4:20.                                                     
                                                      2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013