Appeal No. 97-0739
Application 08/163,265
For these reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the teachings of Smith and Sturges.
Having reviewed the patents to Goldstein, Richman and
Schmidt also applied by the examiner, we find nothing therein
which overcomes or supplies the deficiencies of the basic com-
bination of Smith and Sturges as discussed above. In addition,
we note our agreement with appellants' position (reply brief,
pages 1-3) concerning the appropriate more narrow interpretation
to be given the terminology "spiral-shaped" in claims 4 and 12 on
appeal, and "series of spirals" as used in claim 16 on appeal.
In addition to the arguments made by appellants, we observe that
each of these claims requires the pole receiving member or series
of spirals to define a hollow interior "which is tapered
upwardly." Accordingly, it follows that the examiner's
respective rejections of claims 4, 7, 8 and 10 through 20 under
35 U.S.C.
§ 103 will likewise not be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007