Appeal No. 1998-0030 Page 9
Application No. 08/151,960
and a cylindrical rubber body portion 20. The container 14
also includes endless resilient wire rings 15 and 16 and
intermediate spring metal or other stays 17 interconnecting
the rings 15 and 16. Frost teaches (page 2, left column,
lines 28-49) that the resilience of the stays 17 and the
pivotal connections thereof with the rings 15 and 16, and the
flexibility of the body portion 20, the container 14 may be
collapsed until the rings are adjacent each other. Normally, 6
the stays are substantially straight to maintain the container
14 distended with the rings 15 and 16 fully spaced apart and
the body portion taut.
Based on our analysis and review of Van Romer and the
claims under appeal, it is our opinion that the differences
are (1) the "pocket formed in said wall . . ." limitation; and
(2) the "spring truss fitted within said pocket . . ."
limitation.
6We do not consider this to be a band-type fold as this
phrase is defined on page 10 of the appellant's specification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007