Appeal No. 2004-1635
Application No. 10/083,915 Page 7
pounds being the minimum safe weight for a person being trained
to use climbing equipment is not persuasive. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1350-1351, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982) (when the claim
does not recite allegedly distinguishable features, “appellant[s]
cannot rely on them to establish patentability.”).
Moreover, the testing of a device made from a wire coat
hanger as reported in the declaration of Mr. Schlais has not been
shown to be germane to the device disclosed by Wright because
Wright teaches using braced wire, very stiff wire, or multi-
stranded wire and the coat hanger employed by Mr. Schlais has not
been established as being comparable let alone equivalent to the
device taught by Wright.
In sum, appellant has not furnished a special definition in
their specification for the functional claim terms at issue that
would require a structure that differs from the device taught by
Wright. Nor has appellant otherwise established via the
declaration evidence submitted with the brief how the parts
differ structurally. Consequently, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the examiner’s rejection on this record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007