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
therefrom.
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
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007