Appeal No. 96-4021
Application 08/289,300
recited in the claims (see page 3 in the final rejection) is
unsound.
The appellant’s argument (see pages 10 and 11 in the
main brief) that the combined teachings of the applied references
would not have suggested a guide member which is disposed within
a cavity in a support member and is slidable along an inner side
surface of the support member as recited in claim 38, which
depends from claim 35, is also unconvincing. Hough’s guide
member or stud 42 is disposed within the cavity defined by the
tubular support arm 30 and is slidable along the inner side
surface of this tubular support arm. In this regard, claim 38
does not require the guide member to be in contact or engagement
with the inner side surface of the support member.
In contrast, claims 46 and 48, which depend from
claim 44, and independent claim 53 recite a guide portion which
is disposed within the tubular support member and has a surface
which is in engagement with and is slidable along an inner side
surface of the tubular support member. Claim 52, which depends
from claim 44, recites a guide portion which is disposed within
the tubular support member and has an outer side surface which
has a configuration corresponding to the configuration of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007