Appeal No. 96-4104
Application 08/262,231
laminas; for example, spacing means (tab) 13 would nest with
tab 17.
More fundamentally, however, we do not consider that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed
subject matter obvious from the combination of Neuenschwander
and Diederichs, because Diederichs discloses alternating two
different laminas, the laminas of Figures 1 and 2, in a stack
so that the spacing tabs of each lamina will not coincide with
the spacing tabs of the other lamina (column 2, lines 60 to
65, and column 3, line 63 to column 4, line 2). By contrast,
the claimed apparatus includes (emphasis added):
[F]ourth means for relatively rotating said
laminas so that said spacing means of adjacently
positioned laminas are offset whereby each of said
laminas have surfaces which when positioned
adjacently are separated from adjacent lamina
surfaces by said spacing means.
While Neuenschwander does disclose a means for relatively
rotating adjacent laminas (e.g., column 3, lines 41 to 46,
column 4, lines 39 to 44, and column 8, lines 55 to 61), we do
not consider that the Diederichs disclosure would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill modification of the
Neuenschwander apparatus to provide the claimed “fourth means”
because Diederichs does not cause the disclosed spacing means
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007