Appeal No. 1999-0713
Application 08/325,629
Puno responds to all of the limitations in representative
claim 15 except arguably the one calling for a tension stable
fastening element extending through a slot and around the
support piece to secure the support piece in the channel. In
the Puno
apparatus, wires 120 extend through bores 122 and around the
support piece (rod 18) to secure the support piece in channel
118.
The appellant’s contention that Puno is additionally
deficient because it teaches away from the limitation
requiring the head section to be formed as a single piece with
the
anchoring element is not persuasive. All of the disclosures
in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach
one of ordinary skill in the art, even those phrased in terms
of a non-preferred embodiment. In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Puno’s disclosure of an
integral anchor, i.e., an integral anchoring element (screw
21) and head section (rod support 116), although not
preferred, nonetheless would have suggested an anchoring
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007