Appeal No. 2002-0095
Application No. 09/378,051
In our opinion, claims 7 and 13, read in light of the
underlying disclosure, clearly require that respective directly
opposed finger gripping members be “different” (i.e., not be
identical). A difficulty we have with appellant’s argument,
regarding the above claim limitation, is that it addresses what
is depicted in the Bernhardt patent, and not the explicit
disclosure of the reference (column 7, lines 22 through 28) as to
(opposed finger gripping) configurations that are different
rather than symmetrical. The referenced portion of Bernhardt
makes it quite apparent to this panel of the Board that, for
example, each opposed arcuate wall surface 108 (Fig. 18) would
have a different second radius R2. Accordingly, we conclude that
the Bernhardt document expressly teaches different opposed
surfaces at opposite terminal ends of the insert, i.e., different
opposed first and second finger gripping members at a first
finger opening of an insert and different opposed third and
fourth finger gripping members at a second finger opening of the
insert, as required by claims 7 and 13. Therefore, claims 7 and
13 are anticipated by the Bernhardt patent.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007