Appeal No. 204-2024 Page 7
Application No. 10/138,716
the appellant, and the appellant failed to provide evidence establishing that the claimed
connector differed in structure from those of the two anticipatory references in such a
manner as to cause the claims to be patentably distinct. The extent to which the
appellant replied is to argue that an extruded member “would have less internal
stresses than sheet metal that has been formed (Brief, page 6), “has properties” that a
non-extruded member would not have, which “could provide the advantage” of
increased range taking capability (Brief, page 6; Reply Brief, page 2).
CONCLUSION
While we have reconsidered our decision in the light of the arguments presented
in the Request for Rehearing, we have decided not to alter our decision. This being the
case, the Request for Rehearing is denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007