Appeal No. 2002-0116 Page 8
Application No. 09/457,730
length of the flexible side. Thus, the claimed limitation that "said slot has a length
approximately equal to that of said flexible side" is not met by the combined teachings of
the applied prior art.
In our view, the position of the examiner (answer, pp. 4-6) that one skilled in the art
would have considered the uppermost surface of the inwardly extending B (pi) shaped
contoured portion shown in Figure 7H of Balz to be one flexible side of the opening (e.g.,
component receiving opening 30b shown in Figure 4) is not reasonable. As stated above,
we believe that one skilled in the art would have recognized Balz's component receiving
opening 30b shown in Figure 4 as having four sides, not thirty-six sides if one would to use
the examiner's rationale. Moreover, the uppermost surface of the inwardly extending B (pi)
shaped contoured portion of Balz does not have a length approximately equal to that length
of the slot/oval opening defined thereby as clearly depicted in Figure 7H.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 21, and
claims 23 to 30 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007