Appeal No. 97-3707
Application 08/595,910
of meeting the limitations in claim 9 requiring the web to be
"sized relative to the user’s hand when secured thereon to
overlie the thumb and index finger between respective second
knuckles thereof and the hand web portion between the thumb
and index finger, with its said opposite ends then being near
the second knuckles." As correctly pointed out by the
appellants (see page 6 in the brief), the portion of the Fox
device corresponding to the recited web, the length of
flexible material, is far longer than the web size required by
claim 9 in order to provide the Fox device with a handle
portion 10 (see Fox’s Figures 1 and 5(a)). There is nothing
in the combined teachings of Fox and Delsack which would have
suggested shortening the length of Fox’s web to the size
recited in claim 9, thereby eliminating the handle portion and
changing the very nature of the Fox device.
Tegethoff and/or Schultz, applied to support the standing
rejections of dependent claims 10 through 12, do not cure the
foregoing deficiencies in the basic Fox-Delsack combination.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007