Appeal No. 2004-0350
Application No. 09/570,507
no teaching or suggestion of a projectile having the here claimed
feature concerning flaccid spacer length. This argument, which
is also applicable to appealed independent claim 10, is not well
taken. Kraushaar explicitly teaches that his web member, which
reads on the Appellant’s claimed flaccid spacer, “is provided with
a sufficient length so that when caught on a cross bar it can wrap
around one or two cross bars at the same time” (column 2, lines 4-
7; emphasis added). A web member length which is sufficient to
wrap around two cross bars at the same time would correspond to
the flaccid spacer length defined by the independent claims under
consideration.
The additional argument concerning appealed independent
claim 14 relates to the requirement that the horizontal rungs each
individually possesses a length twice that of the respective
vertical struts. Because the length of these vertical struts
defines the spacing between the horizontal rungs, the claim feature
under consideration involves the parameter of horizontal rung
length relative to vertical spacing between the rungs.
Significantly, Kraushaar evinces that the parameter of rung-
length relative to the spacing between rungs is recognized in this
game art as a result-effective variable (e.g., see Figure 1 in
comparison with Figure 5 and the respective disclosures relating
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007