Appeal No. 97-2939 Page 5
Application No. 08/431,798
defines the sleeve member as being “dimensioned to develop a
frictional force with outer surface portions...”
With regard to the rod members being “wooden,” it is clear
that Pruitt teaches rod members of such material and suggests
that these rods would replace those of the wire type, such as
taught by Liedtke. Accordingly, we still think the artisan
would have found it obvious to provide Liedtke with wooden rod
members in place of the wire members. With regard to the
dimension of the rods, i.e., a diameter of “about 1/4 inches,”
we agree with the examiner that Pruitt’s teaching of a range of
diameters from “0.100" to “0.187" inches suggests a diameter of
“about 1/4 inches” since the upper range of Pruitt’s diameter
and 0.25 inches differ by only 0.063 inches, well within a
reasonable meaning ascribed to “about.”
With regard to the “frictional force,” we find the
examiner’s argument of inherency to be not unreasonable since
Liedtke clearly discloses a sleeve, 6, which serves a similar
purpose to the sleeve of appellant and if there was not
sufficient frictional force in Liedtke (as modified by Pruitt
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007