Appeal No. 1999-2625
Application 08/763,929
limitations relating to the band. Although Ross’ band 42
extends forwardly when in use, it does not do so at any
inclination (i.e., downwardly). Poterack does not meet the
claim limitations relating to the pad channels. Although
Poterack’s wedges arguably constitute pads, they do not define
“channels” within any reasonable definition of this term.
Since neither Ross nor Poterack meets each and every
element set forth in claim 1, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 6 and 8 through 10 as being anticipated by Ross or the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 6 and 9 as being anticipated by Poterack.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 1 through 13, 15 and 17 through 20.
As explained above, neither Ross nor Poterack meets both
the band and channel limitations in independent claim 1.
Claim 13, the other independent claim on appeal, contains
identical limitations which are similarly unmet by either
reference. Apparently recognizing that such might be the case
notwithstanding the above noted § 102(b) rejections, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007