Ex parte MUZSLAY - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1998-3027                                                        
          Application No. 08/546,179                                                  

          term and that Ostapovitch’s tabs are “stiff” relative to a                  
          device made of more ductile material.  See pages 2-3 of Paper               
          No. 11.  However, it is our view that while “stiffness” may                 
          be, in general, a relative term, with regard to the instant                 
          claims (of claims 1 and 9, only claim 1 actually recites the                
          tabs as being “stiff”), the “stiffness”of the tabs is relative              
          to the length of the fingers, i.e., the stiffness claimed is                
          specifically that amount of stiffness achieved by the tabs                  
          being “less than one-quarter” the length of the fingers.                    
          While method claim 9 does not recite the tabs being “stiff,”                
          it is clear that the recitation of the specific length of the               
          tabs vis-'a-vis the length of the fingers does provide for a                
          certain degree of “stiffness.”  Thus, the relative lengths of               
          the tabs and fingers are an important part of the instant                   
          claims and the examiner has not provided any evidence                       
          indicating the obviousness of providing for these relative                  
          lengths since the “tabs” in Wurster are not tabs at all but,                
          rather, anti-tangle shields and the length of the tabs in                   
          Ostapovitch does not meet the claim limitation of it being                  
          “less than one-quarter” the length of the fingers.                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007