Appeal No. 97-3551
Application No. 08/342,759
wrapped around the inner tube for the one beneath it and, in
the case of claims 1-4, 6 and 7, to add stops on the
cylinders, other than the hindsight accorded one who first
viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is
improper. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The rejection of claims 1-7 as being unpatentable over
Very is not sustained.
New Rejection By The Board
Pursuant to our authority under 35 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new rejection:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Very in view of Jacoby.2
This claim merely requires the presence of a first
elongated cylinder, a second elongated cylinder received in
the first, and a spring disposed about the second one. The
embodiment of Very shown in Figures 3 and 4 discloses the
second cylinder and the spring. What is lacking is the first
cylinder within which the second one is “receivable.”
2This patent was cited by the appellant on page 2 of the
appellant’s specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007