Appeal No. 2004-0631 Page 9
Application No. 10/236,715
claimed connectors.1 It would appear to us that the examiner was relying on either the
flange 74 or the hinge lever 78 with its pin 86 as being the connector on the outer
member 30 and relying on either the groove 88 or the holes 89 with cups 90 as being
the connector on the inner member 32. Thus, the examiner appears to have read
either the flange 74 or the hinge lever 78 as being both the claimed connector and the
one of the claimed security bars. This double reading of one component on two
claimed elements is not appropriate.
For the reasons set forth above, claim 1 is not anticipated by Sauey.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2, 6 and 11
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 5, 12 to 16 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reviewed the references to Hepworth and Ward additionally applied in
the rejection of claims 3 to 5, 12 to 16 and 20 but find nothing therein which would have
1 Claim 1 recites that "each segment having a connector enabling end-to-end removable
engagement between adjacent segments."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007