Appeal No. 2006-1748 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/728,375
Appellant also argues that neither Sutton nor Thomas describe a device having a
constant width along the entire length of the device.
We do not find this argument persuasive because Sutton discloses that it is well
within the skill of the artisan to change dimensions and shapes of the various
embodiments (col. 2, lines 60 to 64). Such disclosure would have suggested to a person
of ordinary skill in the art that the shape of the device could be changed to meet the
design desires of the artisan. In addition, we agree with the examiner that Thomas
discloses a device having a constant width along the length of the device as broadly
claimed.
Appellant also argues that neither reference describes a device that has first and
second plate portions of substantially equal lengths.
We do not find this argument persuasive because we agree with the examiner
that Sutton discloses a device having first and second plate portions of substantially
equal lengths at least to the extent that appellant discloses a device having first and
second plate portions of substantially equal lengths. In this regard we note that the
device depicted in Figure 2 of Sutton includes first and second plate portions having
substantially equal lengths to the extent that the device disclosed in Figures 1 and 3 of
appellant’s disclosure depicts a device having first and second plate portions having
substantially equal lengths.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007