Appeal No. 2004-2161 Page 6
Application No. 10/028,875
explained why each of dependent claims 2, 5-8, 14 and 17-21 is separately patentable.
These claims therefore will be grouped with claim 1, from which they depend, and the
like rejection of them also is sustained. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 through claim 6, which establishes that the
bendable piece further comprises a third section contiguous to the second section and
oriented at a specific angle thereto. The appellants argue that this claim is not
anticipated by Beals because applying a force to this section (186) of the Beals piece
“would result in pushing against a physically unsupported item” (Brief, page 8). This
clearly is not the case in Beals, for such a force would be transmitted through integral
sections 186 and 182 to the second body (170). The rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
We apply analogous reasoning in sustaining the rejection of claim 23, which
through claims 8 and 6 adds to claim 1 a fourth section of the bendable piece. The
appellants argue here that application of a force to the straight section of portion 184
“would result in little or no motion" (Brief, page 8). We do not agree, for it is clear that
application of a force perpendicular to the straight portion of portion 184 would cause
movement of sections 186, 188 and 190 to a second position, which is all that is
required by the claim. The rejection of claim 23 is sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007