Appeal No. 1998-3027
Application No. 08/546,179
term and that Ostapovitch’s tabs are “stiff” relative to a
device made of more ductile material. See pages 2-3 of Paper
No. 11. However, it is our view that while “stiffness” may
be, in general, a relative term, with regard to the instant
claims (of claims 1 and 9, only claim 1 actually recites the
tabs as being “stiff”), the “stiffness”of the tabs is relative
to the length of the fingers, i.e., the stiffness claimed is
specifically that amount of stiffness achieved by the tabs
being “less than one-quarter” the length of the fingers.
While method claim 9 does not recite the tabs being “stiff,”
it is clear that the recitation of the specific length of the
tabs vis-'a-vis the length of the fingers does provide for a
certain degree of “stiffness.” Thus, the relative lengths of
the tabs and fingers are an important part of the instant
claims and the examiner has not provided any evidence
indicating the obviousness of providing for these relative
lengths since the “tabs” in Wurster are not tabs at all but,
rather, anti-tangle shields and the length of the tabs in
Ostapovitch does not meet the claim limitation of it being
“less than one-quarter” the length of the fingers.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007