Appeal No. 1999-0738
Application No. 08/474,195
cancel one another” (column 7, lines 30-43), this opposition
occurs upon adoption of the deployed extensible form rather
than upon adoption of the compressed, wound form. This
difference is highlighted by Groskopfs’ preference for storing
the strips 10, 12 on separate storage spools (see Figure 10,
column 5, lines 11-19, and column 6, lines 52-62), which
storage arrangement would obviously preclude one strip from
offering any opposition whatsoever to the other strip in the
wound form.
For these reasons, we will not sustain the standing § 102
rejection of claims 1 and 19 based on Groskopfs, nor the
standing § 102 rejection of claims 4 and 15 which depend from
claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007