Appeal No. 97-2939 Page 7
Application No. 08/431,798
contact with the centrally-disposed inner rod member and
adjacent ones of the outer rod members. This is not true in
the Liedtke device. This language would also not be met by
Pruitt. Pruitt shows, in Figure 2, a cross-section of the
wooden rods but it is not seen that if the rods of Figure 2
were forced together by application of a sleeve pushed distally
from the handle 12 that the language of instant claim 1 would
be met. Rather, it would appear that Pruitt’s device would, at
best, result in three centrally-disposed inner rod members
surrounded by six outer members. While the six outer members
might be in contact with adjacent ones of the outer members,
each of them would not also be in contact with the same, single
"centrally-disposed inner rod member,” as required by instant
claim 1.
Since independent claim 1 recites structure which is
neither disclosed nor suggested by the applied references or
any combination thereof, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 1, or of claims 2 and 3 which depend therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007