Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
understand such a contention inasmuch as the claims under
consideration are not drafted in means or step plus function
format.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mackey.
Turning to the rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mackey and under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Mackey in view of Anderson,
claim 2 expressly requires that the body portion be
symmetrical about a lengthwise extending center line. Viewing
Figs. 1 of Mackey and Anderson, it is readily apparent that
neither of these references either teach or suggest such an
arrangement. This being the case, we will not sustain the
rejections of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Considering next the rejections of claim 3 under 35
U.S.C.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007