Appeal 2007-1435
Application 10/408,979
penultimate para.). As explained by the Examiner, the claims do not recite
“hang” or “suspend” and, furthermore, the dictionary definition supplied by
the Examiner does not support Appellant’s argument that the concept of a
“rack” requires any support or hanging. A rack may simply be a framework
on or in which an article is placed. Certainly, the device of Cooper meets
the definition of a rack.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Cooper
provides no teaching that the cover is breathable. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Appellant’s Specification fails to define what, specifically, is
embraced by the claim term “breathable.” Consequently, we hardly find
error in the Examiner’s conclusion that flap 59A of Cooper renders the
enclosure breathable inasmuch as the stated purpose of the flap is to provide
ventilation. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that the vinyl or nylon
fabric of Cooper’s cover is breathable at least to the non-specified degree
encompassed by Appellant’s claims. Very few, if any, such fabrics are
totally impermeable to air.
Appellant also contends that the device of Cooper does not meet the
claim limitation of “extends and depends from said planar surface”
(principal Br. 11, second para.). However, we agree with the Examiner’s
rationale that “[t]he rack system of Cooper clearly shows the rack system
extends (horizontally) and depends from (by gravity) the generally planar
surface (floor)” (Answer 13, second para.). Furthermore, we find that the
enclosure of Cooper is fully capable of being secured to, and extending
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013