Appeal 2007-2324
Application 10/629,775
Even accepting the Examiner’s premise that burner box 77 and main
section 82 correspond respectively to claim 26’s fire plate and cabinet
holder, however, those elements are not configured as required by claim 26.
We note that main section 82 has slots 85 that accommodate pins 86
allowing the side plate to be mounted to the base 10 and inner liner 41 of the
stove (see, e.g. Vonderhaar, Figure 5). However, we do not see where the
passages cited by the Examiner, or any other portions of Vonderhaar,
disclose that the slots or pins in main section 82 insert into both the burner
box 77 and the side panel 11, or fasten those two structures together. We
therefore do not agree with the Examiner that either of the asserted
alternative fire plate/cabinet holder combinations discloses or suggests the
configuration recited in claim 26. We also do not see where Holub suggests
modifying these elements to achieve the configuration required in claim 26.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. Because
the remaining claims subject to this ground of rejection require a cabinet
holder having “a plurality of fastening pieces” configured to secure the fire
plate to the side plate, the Examiner’s rejection is reversed with respect to
those claims also.
4. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 2-4, 19, and 20
Claims 2-4, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Vonderhaar, Holub, and Yandell (Answer 5-6).
The Examiner urges that one of ordinary skill would have considered
it obvious “to combine the teachings of Vonderhaar in view of Holub with
the curved top surface and matching fire plate curvature, considered
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013