Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
Therefore, we conclude Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred with respect to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
C. Claim 2 – Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s case
At page 11 of the Brief, Appellant again argues that the Examiner has
erred because Buff fails to disclose each wire leg having two upright
sections. Again we disagree for the reasons supra. No additional arguments
are presented.
Therefore, we conclude Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred with respect to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
D. Claim 5 – Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s case
At page 11 of the Brief, Appellant again argues that the Examiner has
erred because in Buff “the separation of the upright sections into segments
has no correlation to the device taught in Buff ‘062.” We agree.
Claim 5 is limited by it terms (“said plurality of offsets are welded to
said wire legs”) to only one of the two offset embodiments of claim 1.
Specifically, the embodiment with “a plurality of offsets located . . . in said
upper rim.” Although Buff does teach an offset in the rim, Buff’s offset in
- 24 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013