Appeal No. 98-2086
Application 08/539,353
Notwithstanding the examiner's rather strained arguments to
the contrary (see page 3 in the answer), no parts of the
Grisel carrier arguably meeting the other arm recitations in
claim 1 also meet this particular limitation. Grisel also
fails to respond to the recitation in claim 1 that each of the
arms has a first engaging means formed thereon for engaging
the other arm wherein each such means is formed into an eye
means. The examiner's reliance on Grisel's tubular locking
members 30, 31 to meet this limitation (see page 3 in the
final rejection) is unsound because neither of these elements
is involved in engaging the other "arm" of the Grisel carrier.
Thus, Grisel does not disclose each and every element of
the invention set forth in claim 1 or in claims 2 and 5 which
depend therefrom. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by Grisel.
As for the § 102(e) rejection of claims 3 and 6, McIntosh
discloses a lock bracket "for securing together two adjacent
objects such as a gate and a fence post" (column 1, lines 4
and 5). The embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 has two
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007