Appeal No. 1999-0738
Application No. 08/474,195
second laminated layers affixed together, as the terms
“laminated” and “affixed together” would be interpreted by an
artisan when read in light of appellant’s disclosure. The
examiner’s assertion that the strips 10, 12 of Groskopfs
“could be adhered to each other by friction to form a
laminated structure” (answer, page 6) has no factual support,
and in any case would not meet the terms of the claims.
Second, the extensible member of Groskopfs is not stable in
both the elongate hollow form and the compressed, wound form,
as claimed. In this regard, note column 7, lines 63-67, of
Groskopfs (“The extensible member of the invention is suited
to the three normal types of operation . . . self extension
using the stored spring energy in the extensible member where
there is no requirement for retraction . . .”). Third, the
second strip or layer of Groskopfs is not arranged to oppose
the bias of the substrate (i.e., first strip or layer) in the
sense called for in the claims. In the claimed device, the
first layer is biased to the elongate hollow form and the
second layer is arranged to oppose that bias upon adoption of
the compressed, wound form. In contrast, while the strips 10,
12 of Groskopfs are arranged “front to front” to “oppose and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007