Appeal No. 97-1621
Application 08/073,586
resulting apparatus would not meet the limitation in claim 1
requiring “a fixed clamp interposed between the uncoiler and the
movable stand so as to clamp and unclamp the elongate article.”
The examiner’s finding that this recitation is met by Stroup’s
rollers 42 (see page 9 in the answer) is not well taken. These
rollers, which Stroup describes as being part of the
straightening and sizing assembly 16, do not constitute a “clamp”
under any reasonable definition of this term.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, or of dependent
claims 3, 6 through 13, 15 and 16, as being unpatentable over
Stroup in view of Suarez and Sato.3
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of dependent claims 2, 4 and 14 as being unpatentable over Stroup
in view of Suarez and Sato, and further in view of Wallis. In
short, the teachings of Wallis do not overcome the above noted
deficiencies of the basic Stroup, Suarez and Sato combination
with respect to the subject matter recited in parent claim 1.
3Claim 6 depends from canceled claim 5. Based on the
record before us, we assume that claim 6 is intended to depend
from independent claim 1. In the event of further prosecution
before the examiner, appropriate action should be taken to
rectify this matter.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007