Appeal No. 204-2024 Page 4
Application No. 10/138,716
structural difference between an extruded connector and a connector formed by other
methods. Moreover, neither passage constitutes evidence that there is a structural
difference between an extruded connector and one made by another process, such as
stamping, for example. In this regard, we note in passing that the appellant has stated
on page 8 of the specification that “[t]he one-piece member 12 is preferably comprised
of a one-piece extruded member 34" (lines 23 and 24; emphasis added), which would
seem to indicate that it was contemplated that the connector can be formed by
processes other than extrusion.
It also is worthy of mention that even if we were to accept the appellant's
proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that an extruded
member has less internal stress than a member that is bent into shape, this does not, in
and of itself, establish that there is a structural difference between a member that is
extruded into shape and one that is bent into shape. Moreover, the appellant's position
in the Request for Rehearing regarding the knowledge to be imparted to of one of
ordinary skill in the art would appear to support a conclusion that, as a general concept,
it would have been within the skill of the artisan to extrude a member or to form it by
other known applicable methods.
The second error alleged by the appellant is that case law, as evidenced by In re
Steppan and In re Garnero, establishes that limitations such as “extruded” “are
considered structural limitations not subject to the product-by-process rules” (Request,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007