Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
Independent claim 2 stands rejected as being unpatentable
over Nickerson. It adds to claim 1 the requirement that the
radius of curvature of the spreader bar body be approximately
twenty-two inches. The appellants have decided to group this
claim with claim 1 (Brief, argument section, page 1), the
rejection of which we have sustained, and therefore we shall
sustain the rejection of claim 2 also.
Claim 3 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the bar body
include upper and lower bar members having “snap connectors”
for secure interconnection. This claim stands rejected on the
basis of Nickerson and Palmer. Nickerson fails to disclose or
teach either of these added limitations. Palmer does disclose
a spreader bar constructed of upper and lower members.
However, the two bar members in Palmer are attached together
by rivets, which are not, in our view, the same as or
equivalent to the “snap connectors” called for in the claim.
Rivets have no “snap together” capability, but must be
installed by a special tool. This is not the case with the
appellants’ “snap connectors” (see specification, pages 12 and
13, and Figures 6 and 11). It therefore is our determination
that the combined teachings of Nickerson and Palmer fail to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007