Appeal No. 95-3582
Application 08/179,419
support of their respective positions may be found on pages 3-
5 of the brief and pages 5 and 6 of the answer.
Considering first the rejections of claims 21 and 26
under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wismer and claims
22-25, 27-29 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatent-able over Wismer, both of these rejections are based
on the examiner’s view that
the portions of spurs 6 of Wismer which extend
vertically as seen in fig. 2 and which extend
between plate 3 and the portions of spurs 6 which
are bent over plate 2 form a “hollow tubular body”
as claimed with slits or gaps running vertically
along the tubular body between the spurs 6. The
claims do not require the tubular body to be free of
any slits or gaps. [Answer, page 5.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. While it is
true that the claims in a patent application are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
specification (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and limitations from a pending
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007