Appeal No. 2004-2072 Page 4 Application No. 10/036,678 at least one brace member that secures the wedge portion within the socket portion, the brace member including an opening through at least one side wall of the brace member and the wedge portion including an opening, the openings being situated such that a tool can be received into the openings and utilized to manipulate the wedge portion relative to the brace [member]. The anticipation rejections of claim 13 We will not sustain the rejections of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The appellants argue (brief, pp. 10 and 13; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that the claimed extruded socket portion and the claimed extruded wedge portion are not disclosed by either Schmidt or Brendel. The examiner asserts (answer, pp. 8-9 and 11-12) that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the examiner gave the term "extruded" little, if any, patentable weight. Furthermore, the examiner maintained that the term "extruded" does not distinguish over the structure of the prior art. The examiner's position is that the term "extruded'' is merely a method of forming and not a structural limitation. In our view, the term "extruded" as used in claim 13 is a structural limitation entitled to patentable weight since extruding imparts distinctive structural characteristicsPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007