Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex parte STONE - Page 8
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 1997 > Ex parte STONE - Page 8
Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
The appellant’s arguments that Copell’s recesses or grooves
are not located proximate the respective junction locations
between the wing and base portions and would not permit
deflection of the wing portions away from one another to reduce
bending moments on the base portion as recited in claim 1 (see,
for example, page 8 and 9 in the main brief and page 4 in the
reply brief) are not well taken. Copell’s Figure 3 clearly shows
that grooves 13 are located proximate the respective junction
locations between the wing and base portions as broadly recited
in claim 1. Moreover, it is not apparent, nor has the appellant
pointed out, why such grooves would not function to permit
deflection of the wing portions away from one another to reduce
bending moments on the base portion.
Engvall discloses a holder device adapted to be secured to
an aerosol can to hold an extension tube while not in use. As
described by Engvall,
[w]hile the holder 10 is intended to be affixed to
an aerosol container, and is intended to hold an
extension tube, it will become apparent to those
skilled in the art that the holder may be affixed to
other supporting surfaces, and that the inventive
holder could be adapted to support other types and
kinds of rodlike members, such as broom handles, tool
handles, and others.
With reference now to FIGS. 2-4, the tube holder
10 has a base 14, with an adhesive layer 21 on the
8
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
