Appeal 2007-1671
Application 10/374,837
to the protrusions 34 or 36 of the drive cage 6 of Liu as
corresponding to the "at least one extension member
configured to extend forward of a frontal mounting
surface of the chassis….” Appellants respectfully submit
that such protrusions 34 or 36 are not equivalent to the
"at least one extension member configured to extend
forward of a frontal mounting surface of the chassis….”
(Appeal Br. 7.)
We decline to read Liu as Appellants maintain. Contrary to Appellants’
assertion, the protrusions 32, 34, 36 on the cage 6 of Liu do not solely make up the
extension members of the cage 6. Rather, the protrusions 32, 34, 36 are a part of
end portions of the walls 16, 18, 20, 20 which define the cage 6. These portions or
extensions members of the cage walls are defined by wall portions starting in the
plane coincident with the step 24 (Fig. 1) taken outwardly to the free end of each
wall. The walls 16, 18, 20, 20 are configured at these extensions to extend through
the opening 8 in the chassis 4 and forwardly of the outer surface thereof. Thus, the
process of inserting the extension(s) of cage 6 into opening 8 of the chassis causes
the fingers 12,12 and protrusions 32, 34, 36, to become pressed together thereby
causing the cage 6 and the chassis 4 to be coupled as required by claim 8.
Appellants next argue that this connection between the protrusions 32, 34,
36 on the extension members of cage 6 and the fingers 12, 12 on the chassis 4
while it creates a ground between the cage 6 and the chassis 4, does not couple the
cage to the chassis as required by claim 8. (Appeal Br. 8, 9.) First, a grounding
connection is a coupling between two members and meets this claim limitation
because it is based on contact. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition
(1996) defines “couple” inter alia, as 1a: to connect for consideration together.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013