Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
Cir. 1989). Therefore, use of the definite article “the” to reference “chassis” in
dependent claims 9 and 10 is proper given that the chassis part of the claimed
combination.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejections
The Oros Reference
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Oros. Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of claims 9-14 that depend from claim 8, which is the sole
independent claim among those claims. Therefore, claims 9-14 stand or fall with
claim 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue Oros does not anticipate claim 8 because
[t]he flange 42 of Oros referred to by the Examiner is not
"configured to extend forward of a frontal mounting
surface of the chassis to coincide with a bezel disposed
on the computer chassis when the drive cage is installed
in the computer chassis" as recited by Claim 8. To the
contrary, the flange 42 of Oros appears to be disposed
behind or rearwardly of the front panel 22 of Oros.
Accordingly, for at least this reason, Oros does not
anticipate Claim 8.
(Appeal Br. 6)
Appellants’ argument, however, assumes one reads the casing assembly 40
in Oros as the drive cage. We however choose not to read element 40 as the drive
cage, but instead choose to read the drive retaining assembly 28 in Oros as the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013