Appeal No. 1998-0860
Application No. 08/365,710
in the other embodiment disclosed by Stern” (Decision, page[1]
3). Appellant argues (Request, page 1) that “Figure 1 shows
the inhibiting device 51, albeit there is no number on the
drawing (see the heavy lined block below numeral 41).”
Inasmuch as Stern is completely silent as to a description of
the element near numeral 41 in Figure 1, we will not assume
that it is a roll-inhibiting device. When Figures 1 through 6
are discussed together in the description of the invention,
Stern indicates that they are not the same embodiment because
she uses the term “embodiments” (column 4, line 42) to refer
to these figures. In the “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS,”
for example, Stern indicates (column 2, lines 40 and 41) that
“FIG. 6 illustrates a modification to an end of the spring-
strip depicted in FIGS. 5a and 5b.” Stern clearly explains
(column 4, lines 17 through 35) that the roll-inhibiting
device 51 was added to the Figure 6 embodiment “to ensure that
spring-strip 41 rolls from the top edge 21 of the bag, rather
than from bottom edge 23.”
1 Appellant has correctly argued (Request, page 2) that
the roll-inhibiting device 51 is in the “species of figures 7-
9.”
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007