Appeal No. 1998-1430
Application No. 08/376,298
1. Claims 121-132, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Derderian.
2. Claims 121, 127, 133 and 134, rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Derderian.
3. Claims 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130 and 131,
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Staats-Oels.
With respect to the rejections based on Derderian (i.e.,
rejections 1 and 2), the essence of the rejections is the
examiner’s determination that the elongated members 26 of
Derderian’s insert member 22 collectively comprise a “sheet”
of substantially uniform thickness, as called for in claims
121 and 127, and that the flexible legs 32 and cap portions 42
of Derderian’s insert member 22 collectively comprise a
plurality of resiliently compressible (or deformable)
“indentations” in the sheet, with each “indentation” defining
a “projection” extending away from one side of the “sheet” and
a “recess” extending into an opposite side of the “sheet,”
also as called for in claims 121 and 127. Appellant argues
(main brief, page 3) that the examiner has misconstrued the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007