Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
drive cage because it, and not casing assembly 40, directly receives the floppy
drive therein (Oros, col. 3, ll. 38-41). In addition, the casing assembly 40 in Oros
is read as the chassis because it is rigidly connected to the assembly structure 10
and acts as the base to which the drive cage 28 is mounted (Oros, col. 3, ll. 15-22).
Further, as found supra, the drive retaining assembly 28 has extension
portions (see, Fig. 8, stop element 74 is mounted on extensions of cage 28) such
that when the cage 28 is inserted into the chassis 40, the extensions extend forward
of a frontal mounting surface of the chassis, e.g. the flanges 42 of the chassis 40.
In this way, the stop element 74 carried by the cage extension members, is located
before or coincidently with the outer surface of the cover or a bezel 22 as required
by claim 8 (Oros, col. 3, ll. 54-59). As such, Oros anticipates claim 8 and claims
9-14 fall with claim 8.
The Liu Reference
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Liu. 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 “independent Claim 8 is clearly patentable over Liu.”
(Appeal Br. 9.) More specifically, Appellants state that:
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner appears to refer
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013