Appeal No. 2003-0539
Application No. 09/188,702
Claim 7 is anticipated by Glickman’s Figure 25 connector
because each of the holes is separated from an opposed hole by a
web of material, namely, the web (not numbered) that curves back on
itself to form the circular opening for receiving the strut 403.
Claim 9 is anticipated by Glickman because all of the holes of the
Figure 25 connector are the same. Claim 10 is anticipated by
Figure 25 of Glickman because each hole has an innermost corner
aligned with the innermost corner of an opposed hole. Concerning
claim 11, the remarks of claim 7 apply.
Appellants’ arguments in the brief have been considered to the
extent they apply to our new ground of rejection. The requirement
of claim 1 that the connector has two holes “adapted to mate with a
two-fingered genderless connector by means of an interference fit
when the fingers are inserted into the holes” does not distinguish
over Glickman’s Figure 25 connector because the holes of the Figure
25 connector reasonably appears to be fully capable of receiving
and forming an interference fit with an appropriately shaped male
connector member. Thus, appellants’ argument on page 4 of the
2(...continued)
disclosed in the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations of
the claim be found in or fully met by the reference. Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007