Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
A second issue raised by Appellant is whether one of the cap (upper
or lid portion 42) and the container (lower portion 32) of Genuise has an
aperture formed therein for passage of the elongated member (tether line
14), as required in claims 25, 27, 28 and 33 (App. Br. 19-20). As perhaps
best illustrated in Figure 5 of Genuise, groove 50 defined in extending
portion 48 of lower portion 32 communicates with the interior of lower
portion 32 via an aperture (not numbered) in the cylindrical side wall of
lower portion 32, to permit passage of tether line 14. Genuise thus satisfies
the limitation at issue.
Appellant's arguments do not demonstrate error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28 and 33 as anticipated by
Genuise. The rejection is sustained as to these claims.
Claim 14:
At issue is whether Genuise's tether line 14 is a "ribbon," as recited in
claim 14, as contended by the Examiner (Ans. 5). Appellant and the
Examiner appear to agree that a "ribbon" is "a long, thin flexible band of
metal, as for a spring, a band saw, or a tapeline" or "Tattered or ragged
strips" (Reply Br. 8; Ans. 14). Tether line 14 of Genuise is shown as a string
or wire and is neither a band nor a tattered or ragged strip and, thus, is not a
"ribbon." Claim 14, which requires the extendable and retractable elongated
member to be a "ribbon," is not anticipated by Genuise. See Kloster
Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84
(Fed. Cir. 1986) ("absence from the reference of any claimed element
negates anticipation"). The rejection is reversed as to claim 14.
Claim 21:
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013