Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
THE ISSUES1
1. Does Ohgami disclose “angled” retention structures, as required by
independent claims 7, 14, and 22?
2. If Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, do Ohgami’s angle retention
structures include the additional features recited in dependent claims 10 and 17?
3. If Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative, would it have been obvious to
modify Ohgami’s latch to employ a plurality of bosses and mating retention
structures, as required by independent claims 1, 20, and 29?
4. If Issue 3 is answered in the affirmative, do Ohgami’s retention structures
include the additional features recited in dependent claims 2, 4, 39, and 41?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Application claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent
with the specification, “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained
in
1 The issues as stated herein reflect the Appellant’s arguments. See Gechter
v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e
expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by
limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and
satisfactory explanations for such findings.") (emphasis added). Cf. In re Rouffet,
149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“On appeal to the
Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [for obviousness] by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie
case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013