Appeal 2007-0470
Application 09/976,997
With this interpretation, we turn to Radloff. Although Radloff’s post
16f is part of the chassis as Appellants indicate, the scope and breadth of the
claim language simply does not preclude this “locating element” that
prevents the filler panel body from moving in a perpendicular direction.
Significantly, all that the claim requires is that the locating element be
“coupled to” the filler panel body. In our view, the direct mechanical
engagement between the post 16f and the filler panel body as shown in Fig.
1 fully meets this limitation.
Although Appellants argue that there is theoretically no limit to
Radloff’s anticipation under the Examiner’s rationale, we note that Radloff’s
direct mechanical engagement between the post and the filler panel body
fully comports with the plain meaning of “coupled.” This direct mechanical
engagement is hardly commensurate with the extreme example noted by
Appellants on Page 2 of the Reply Brief.4
In addition, the scope and breadth of the locating element limitation in
claim 1 does not preclude the screw that secures mount 14b to the shelf
through the post 16f. See Radloff, col. 4, ll. 50-60. Simply put, nothing in
the claim precludes the screw itself as constituting a “locating element” that
is “coupled to” the filler panel body through post 16f.
We further note that the scope and breadth of claim 1 also does not
preclude the engagement between the filler panel 14 at its lower end to the
chassis in Fig. 1. Specifically, the filler panel 14 is curved at its lower end
and is inserted into a slot 16k in the chassis as shown in the enlarged detail
portion of Fig. 1 below:
4 See Reply Br. 2 (arguing that under the Examiner’s interpretation, “Radloff
would anticipate a filler panel with an air conditioner coupled thereto”).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013