Appeal No. 98-0806
Application No. 08/693,588
require the core be "squeezed through" the loop of the clip.
With respect to this limitation, the examiner is apparently of
the opinion that Bellows teaches such an arrangement. While
Bellows does state in line 21 of column 3 that the coil 41
grips the energy absorber 16 (which is a stainless steel tube
coated with successive layers of aluminum, silicon oxide,
chromium oxide, and silicon oxide - see column 2, lines 53-56)
"firmly," it does not follow that it can be considered to be
"squeezed through" the loop as claimed. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 9
based on the combined teachings of Fritzberg and Bellows and
of 21 based on the combined teachings of Fritzberg, Bellows
and McMichael.
In summary:
The rejections of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-16, 18-20, 23 and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 6, 9, 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007