Appeal No. 1996-3386
Application No. 08/136,123
formation of a helix. Accordingly, Kendall cannot and does
not
suggest substituting adjacent short and long projections for
pairs of adjacent long projections of Sato. In summary, even
if it were somehow obvious to combine the structures of Sato
and Kendall, the result would not be alternating short and
long projections as recited in the claims. Therefore, we
cannot affirm the rejection of claims 1 through 3 and their
dependent claims.
As to claim 4 and the claims which depend therefrom,
Pisharody (the additional reference applied by the examiner)
does not teach alternating short and long projections.
Accordingly, Pisharody does not cure the deficiencies in the
combination of Sato and Kendall. Therefore, we must reverse
the rejection of claim 4 and its dependents.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007