Appeal No. 2001-1402
Application 09/287,838
For claim 6, appellant presents the same argument
concerning Gourley as he did for Meier, namely that Gourley’s
strip (inner member) 2 is not “elongate” because it does not
have a length at least one and one-half times greater than the
width. This argument is not borne out by appellant’s own
measurements (brief, page 14), however, because a length of
1 / (1.6875) inches is exactly 1½ times the width of 1c11 16
(1.125) inches.
Appellant further argues as to claims 12 and 18 that the
figurine of Meier, when attached to outer member 4 of Gourley,
would not “extend[] perpendicular to the strip when mounted on
the base” (claim 12), and would not “stand[] erect on top of
the base” (claim 18). This argument is not persuasive. The
clown’s head 2 of Meier extends essentially perpendicular to
portions 3, 4, of the enclosure, as shown in Fig. 1 of Meier,
and stands erect relative to them. With the device 1 of Meier
attached to the top of outer member 4 of Gourley, the clown’s
head would extend perpendicular to the elongate strip, i.e.,
Gourley’s inner member 2, since members 2 and 4 are
essentially parallel in use (see Gourley Fig. 5), and would
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007