Appeal No. 2003-1181
Application No. 09/755,575
must be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. See
In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,
1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This the examiner has clearly not done.
Moreover, it is our view that the traction bar (11) of
Granryd does not even meet the definition relied upon by the
examiner, since the traction bar (11) is clearly not "an open-
ended flat or tubular packaging or cover" (emphasis added).
Contrary to the examiner's view, we consider that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand a "sleeve" to be an elongated,
hollow tube-like structure having a bore extending longitudinally
therethrough, whether or not the cross section of the hollow
tube-like structure is circular or flattened as in appellant's
invention. In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 8 through 10, 13 through 16,
19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Granryd.
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007