Appeal No. 2004-2072 Page 5
Application No. 10/036,678
to the final product. Since neither Schmidt nor Brendel disclose either an extruded
socket portion or an extruded wedge portion as recited in claim 13, Schmidt and
Brendel do not anticipate claim 13. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmidt is reversed and the
decision of the examiner to reject claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brendel is reversed.
The anticipation rejections of dependent claims 14 to 19, 23, 24 and 26
In view of decision above to reverse the anticipation rejections of claim 13, the
decision of the examiner to reject dependent claims 14 to 16, 19 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schmidt is reversed and the decision of the
examiner to reject dependent claims 14 to 18 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brendel is reversed.
The anticipation rejection of claim 26
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 14-16; reply brief, p. 3) that the claimed brace
member including an opening through at least one side wall of the brace member and
the claimed wedge portion including an opening wherein the openings are situated such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007