Appeal No. 97-2939 Page 6
Application No. 08/431,798
to include wooden rods), between the rods and the sleeve, the
sleeve would slip during the use of the percussion implement,
making it less than desirable for its intended use.
In any event, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1 through 3 because claim 1 calls for “each of said outer rod
members being in contact with said centrally-disposed inner rod
member and adjacent ones of said outer rod members...” This
recitation is clearly descriptive of appellant’s Figure 2. If
one were to take a cross-section of the rods in Liedtke, no
such structure would result.
The examiner cites language from our earlier decision, at
page 9 of the answer. While the citations are accurate, we
find no relevance of that language in our previous decision to
the instant claim language. We still contend that the wire
bristles of Liedtke are “rod members” and that the wire
bristles having the middle pellet on the upper row constitute a
“centrally-disposed inner rod member” about which a plurality
of rod members are disposed. However, the language of claim 1
now before us requires that each of the outer rod members be in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007