Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
pegs are moved between a first storage position and a second operative
position" as a rotating or sliding contact between two structures in the upper
portion of the tray which resists relative motion until pushed by a user in a
desired direction.
In Slipp, pivoting bars e, on which pegs c and d are mounted, are in
contact with the tray a and b at an upper portion of the tray. The pegs c and
d rotate between first storage and second operative positions when a user
manually collapses the pegs, thereby frictionally engaging, i.e., rotating the
bars e in contact with the upper portion of the tray at pivot axis f. [Slipp, p.
1, ll. 28-35 and 83-86; p. 2, ll. 17-20; Figs. 3 and 4.] Thus, Slipp describes
performing the identical function recited in the means limitation function of
claim 22 using the same or an equivalent structure as that disclosed in
Appellants' Specification.
Based on the foregoing, we find the "frictional means connected to
said pegs for frictionally engaging said upper portion of said tray when said
pegs are moved between said first storage position and said second operative
position" recited in claim 22 is disclosed by Slipp.
(vi) summary
Based on the foregoing, claims 2, 4-7, and 22-26 are anticipated by
Slipp. The Examiner has failed to establish that claims 9 or 29 are
anticipated by Slipp.
2. Are claims 19 and 20 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Son?
As a preliminary matter we note that Appellants have grouped claim
20 with claim 19, from which it depends, and have not separately argued the
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013