Appeal 2007-0631
Application 10/379,652
is engaged with a connector the second end becomes releasably mated to a
protrusion thereby latching the board to the connector (Answer 3-4).
In response, Appellant asserts that Hristake fail to teach that the first
and second ends are part of one continuous member. In this regard,
Appellant asserts that Hristake’s first end (44) is connected by a pivot pin
(48) to the remainder of Hristake’s device. As such, Appellant asserts the
first end is separate from the second end (Br. 9). Accordingly, Appellant
asserts that the first and second ends “are not part of one continuous body, as
required by claim 1” (id.). In this regard, Appellant asserts that the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary “definition of continuous is: ‘marked by
uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence’” (Reply Br. 4-5,
footnote omitted). From this, Appellant asserts that since the first end (44)
and the remainder of Hristake’s device are separate, disjointed, and
interrupted from one another it cannot be said that they represent part of one
continuous body (Reply Br. 5).
In response, the Examiner finds that the first end (44) and the second
end (54) of Hristake’s device are attached and assembled to form one
continuous connected piece (Answer 11). In our opinion, the Examiner has
the better argument. Attachment of the first end via a pivot pin (48) does not
cause the first end to be separated in space, time, or sequence from the
remainder of Hristake’s device. To the contrary, Hristake’s device
comprises one continuous member having a first end and a second end
disposed longitudinally from said first end. We find nothing in Appellant’s
claim to suggest that the first end cannot be attached via a pivot pin to the
second end of the device.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013