Appeal No. 1999-0713
Application 08/325,629
as a simple matter of common sense, the use of a single,
centered tie and slot in the Puno device, thereby arriving at
the subject matter recited in claim 18. The appellant’s
position that the invention defined in claim 18 is
additionally patentable as
compared with the subject matter recited in parent claim 15
(see pages 11 and 12 in the reply brief) rests on the premise
that Puno’s screw and rod support are separate elements. As
pointed out above, however, this premise is refuted by Puno’s
disclosure that the screw and rod support can be made
integral. Upon return of the application to the technology
center, the examiner should reconsider the patentability of
claim 18 over the prior art and either enter an appropriate
rejection or explain why the claimed subject matter is
patentable.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007