Appeal No. 1997-1409
Application 08/297,399
claim 5 is also reversed. The addition of Knudsen as to the
rejection of claim 3 does not cure the noted deficiencies.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is also reversed.
Claims 6 and 7
The Examiner finds the differences between Falco and
the subject matter of claim 6 to be the shape of the flange
elements and the addition of a flange means of semicircular
cross-sectional shape at the rear of the stem means. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to make
the flanges in Falco in the shape of a cone in view of
Huntress, Hill, or Baum (EA11). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to provide a rounded flange means
on Falco in view of the flange in Knudsen. Claim 6 does not
recite the angle of the cone elements.
Appellant argues that the flanges in Knudsen lie within
a large skirt that restricts easy grasping of the stem
immediately forward of the flange while the claims require
the area radially beyond and forward of the flange to be
completely unobstructed to grasping (Br8).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007