Appeal No. 97-1449
Application 08/395,214
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
through 7, 9, 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being antici-
pated by LaRue, we must agree with appellants (brief, pages 3-4)
that LaRue fails to disclose or teach a chuck with a partially
hollow elastic boot that is stretched, or is stretchable, in the
manner required in appellants' claim 1 on appeal. While the
chuck element (14) of LaRue is said to be a plastic member (i.e.,
column 2, lines 52-56, made of polypropylene which has the
property of being wear resistant, resilient, strong, and is
machinable into the desired configuration), we find no indication
that such plastic member is capable of stretching in the manner
recited in appellants' claim 1 on appeal. Instead, the plastic
member (14) of LaRue is described as including hinge areas or
"living" hinges (21, 22, 23) which are said to allow the chuck
member to be outwardly deflected upon retraction of the operating
rod (16) so as to grip the inner surface of the glass article
(T), with the member (14) returning to its initial or pre-
actuation configuration/position due to memory built into the
polypropylene member (column 4, lines 21-25). There is nothing
in LaRue which would indicate to an artisan that the plastic
member (14) therein is capable of stretching to decrease its
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007