Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Radloff.
3. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Radloff in view of Jones.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claims 1-3, the Examiner has indicated how the claimed
invention is deemed to be fully met by the disclosure of Radloff.
Significantly, the Examiner indicates in the rejection that post 16f in Fig. 1
of Radloff corresponds to a “locating element” as claimed (Answer 3).
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Radloff’s post
16f is not an integral part of the filler panel body assembly 14 as the
Examiner indicates, but rather is an integral part of the chassis assembly 16
(Br. 8; Reply Br. 1). Appellants argue that a feature of the keyed filler panel
assembly is that it is a complete assembly prior to the final coupling of the
filler panel body with the chassis. Moreover, Appellants contend that the
preamble recitation “keyed filler panel assembly” excludes the locating
element being on the chassis and not on the filler panel (Br. 8).
The Examiner responds by essentially arguing that Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. In this regard,
the Examiner argues that Radloff’s post 16f is “coupled to” the filler panel
body as claimed. The Examiner further notes that the limitation “filler panel
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013