Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
Basically, the Examiner has properly established a prima facie
showing that reissue 21, 30-32, and 41, are anticipated by Nepela.
C. § 102 - Appellants’ Response3
(1)
Missing Elements
In the Brief at pages 50-51, Appellants argue that claims 21, 30-32,
and 41 are patentable because side rails 72, 74 and cross rail 98 of Nepela’s
Figure 4b (and analogous features in Figures 4c, 5b, 5c, and 5d) fail to recite
all the U-shaped platform of claims 21, 30-32, and 41. We disagree.
By itself, central front pad 108 of Nepela’s Figure 5c is a U-shaped
platform as defined by the claims. Findings of Fact 28-37 demonstrate that
every element of claims 21, 30-32, and 41, is found in Nepela. This
argument fails to show Examiner error.
(2)
Center Pad 108 Is Missing Sidewalls
In the Substitute Reply Brief at pages 21-23 (and again in the Third
Reply at pages 9-18), Appellants argue that claims 21, 30-32, and 41 are
patentable because the presence of side rails 112, 114 in Nepela’s Figure 5c
3 Appellants’ response is contained in the Brief filed December 9, 2002,
Substitute Reply Brief filed May 8, 2003, Third Reply Brief filed October
25, 2004, and Supplement to Reply Brief filed April 4, 2007.
- 22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013