Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
pipe cannot move vertically when the bracket is locked, and 1
when the bracket is unlocked, thus no longer supporting the
pipe, the pipe would clearly be allowed to move vertically.
Consequently, since all of the structure recited in claim
10 may be read on Matthysse, the rejection of claim 10 under
§ 102(b) will be sustained.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 12, and of
claims 13, 15, 17 and 20, which appellants have grouped with
claim 12 (brief, page 3). 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Most of the
foregoing discussion of the rejection of claim 10 is
applicable to claim 12; the only limitation of claim 12 which
appellants argue separately from claim 10 is the limitation
that in the unlocked position the locking portion "releas[es]
said pipe from said set position for adjustment of said pipe."
This limitation does not distinguish claim 12 from Matthysse,
however, because, assuming arguendo that "for adjustment of
said pipe" should be given patentable weight, once Matthysse's
clamp is unlocked and released from pipe 18, the pipe is free
for "adjustment," as broadly recited. Claim 12 is therefore
1The claims do not require the central axis of the pipe
to be vertical.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007