Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
to a diametrically opposite side of the joint through a
continuous span of material arranged in a hoop direction.
Thus, the structure in Law Figure 4 satisfies even appellant’s
more restrictive understanding of what constitutes a “clevis.”
In light of the foregoing, our affirmance of the
rejection of claims 1 through 6, 10 through 13, 22 and 23
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the collective teachings of Kee and Law set
forth in our decision mailed September 28, 2000 is maintained.
But our affirmance of the rejection of that same set of claims
based on Kee and Utterberg is now vacated and the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 6, 10 through 13, 22 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the collective teachings of
Kee and Utterberg is reversed.
As for appellant’s comments in the request concerning the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007