Ex parte DATON-LOVETT - Page 7

          Appeal No. 1999-0738                                                        
          Application No. 08/474,195                                                  

          reasonably appears to comprise two laminated layers affixed                 
          together to form a unitary composite element, as called for in              
          independent claim 1, is the Figure 4 embodiment.  Myer’s                    
          Figure 4 embodiment is not disclosed as being stable in both                
          the elongate hollow form and the compressed, wound form, as                 
          now claimed.  Further, while Myer’s Figure 4 embodiment                     
          comprises a first layer that is biased to an elongate hollow                
          form, it does not further comprise a second layer that opposes              
          the bias of the first layer, as now claimed.  In this regard,               
          the circumstance that the seam of the outer layer 24 is                     
          located on the opposite side of the hollow form relative to                 
          the seam of the inner layer 25 does not suffice.                            
               In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the                     
          standing  102 rejection of claim 1 based on Myer, nor the                  
          standing  102 rejection claims 2-4 and 15, which depend                    

               Turning to the  102 rejection of claims 1 and 19 as                   
          being anticipated by Groskopfs, the extensible tube disclosed               
          therein is deficient in at least three respects.  First, the                
          extensible member of Groskopfs does not comprise first and                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007