Appeal No. 95-1405
Application 08/095,276
specific use of SILASTIC material. Additionally, the language
"sponge floats" used in claim 21 is not coextensive with the
statement that they have "sponge-like configurations as
argued." In any event, we find that the insulating
supports/spacers/plates in dependent claim 25, in Carlson
clearly appear to us to perform the stated functions of the
sponge floats in independent claim 21 on appeal.
Appellants also disclose no material of their own nor any
known material to comprise the claimed sponge floats. Thus,
such material was either known or would have been obvious to
this artisan. In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407, 176 USPQ 340,
341 (CCPA 1973).
We agree with the examiner’s correlation of dependent
claim 26 upon Carlson’s teachings and showings clearly
indicating the subject matter of this claim on appeal. Note
Figures 2 and 4 of Carlson which show the staggered appearance
of joints 30, 31 and 32 of the particular bus bars 14.
Inasmuch as appellants have not argued the particulars of
dependent claims 22 through 24 and 27, the rejection of them
is sustained as well.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007