Appeal 2007-1687
Application 10/136,781
of Bisaka and Edwards; and claims 7, 12, and 15 are correspondingly
rejected over these references and further in view of Gelting, Okamoto, and
Hanrahan respectively.
THE § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH, REJECTION
According to the Examiner, “the [S]pecification, while being enabling
for providing the continuous height adjustability for the top end plate as
shown in Fig. 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for this
arrangement for the bottom end plate” (Answer 3). The Examiner further
explains that “[t]he bottom end plate is shown and disclosed as only
providing a fixed positioning of the end plate and does not teach or suggest
of [sic] the adjustability as defined in the claims” (id.).
Contrary to the Examiner’s belief, none of the independent claims on
appeal require continuous adjustability at the bottom (or second) end plate,
and independent claim 32 does not require adjustability at either the top
(first) or bottom (second) end plates. In any event, as correctly argued by
Appellant (Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 2-3),2 the Specification enables
continuous adjustability at both end plates by expressly teaching that the slot
openings 78, which provide continuous adjustability, are disposed in “either
the first and/or second ends 72, 74 of each side plate 36” (Specification
14:4-5).
Under these circumstances, the § 112, first paragraph, rejection of all
claims cannot be sustained.
2 The Examiner inappropriately has failed to even acknowledge much less
rebut this argument.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013