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. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007