Appeal No. 96-3203 Page 5
Application No. 08/081,984
order to be considered as having a “cylindrical” form. From
Heinke’s description that the embodiments shown in Figures 5
and 6 are conical, it cannot be assumed that the largest
turn or loop or even a segment thereof has a constant
diameter to assume a cylindrical configuration.
The barrel-shaped embodiments shown in Figures 7 and
8 also fail to anticipate the subject matter of appealed
claim 1 because the cylindrical portion in each of these
barrel configurations lies intermediate the ends of the
coiled wire and thus does not extend from one end of the
wire as required by claim 1. Obviously, Heinke’s cylindrical
embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 also fail to anticipate the
subject matter of claim 1 because they lack the claimed
conical segment.
Since each and every element of appealed claim 21 is
not expressly or inherently disclosed in Heinke, this
reference does not anticipate the subject matter of claim
21. See RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ. 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007