Appeal No. 97-3064
Application 08/235,332
that the device of Wittel would inherently “accommodate” a
flexible resilient strip of nominally curved lateral cross
section and that the claimed characteristics would therefore
be “exhibited.” Instead, the appellant argues that
Wittel does not suggest that the bending of his
strip in its arcuate path is sufficient to snap a
laterally curved strip into a flat lateral cross
section.
If the only point of difference between claim 15
and Wittel was that the claimed apparatus is
operated with a laterally curved strip whereas
Wittel operates his apparatus with a laterally flat
strip, then the Examiner’s argument might have some
merit. However, that is not the case. The point of
distinction is in element (b) of apparatus claim 15,
which is a permissible means plus function
structural limitation, requiring the arcuate path be4
4Claim 15 in subparagraph b) sets forth “drive means for
longitudinally advancing the strip along the arcuate path . .
. to bend . . . and by that bending cause the nominally curved
lateral cross section to snap to a flat lateral cross
section.” We observe, however, the drive means (i.e., rollers
20,21) is simply the mechanism which causes the strip to
advance, it is the tracks which guide the advancing strip
along the arcuate path that actually performs the function of
causing the advancing strip to “snap” as claimed. In the
event of further prosecution before the examiner, this
informality should be corrected. For purposes of the § 102(b)
rejection, we will consider subparagraphs a) and b) to
collectively define a means for advancing and guiding the
strip which causes the advancing strip to bend and “snap” in
the required manner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007