Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
describe a support member slidably connected within the releasable clamp
(Appeal Br., p. 4). Claim 1 requires “a support member slidably connected
within the releasable clamp” (Br. App. A).
However, Appellant concedes that Watkins discloses “an inner arm
section 13 that is slidably received within the telescoping arm 4” (Appeal
Br., p. 4; emphasis added). Nevertheless, Appellant argues, “the connection
between clamp 5 and the telescoping member 4 is rigid,” and “the inner arm
13 does not slide within clamp 5,” it slides within telescoping arm 4 (Appeal
Br., p. 4). Appellant asserts that Watkins’ inner arm 13 does not describe
the support member of Claim 1 because Watkins’ inner arm 13 is slidably
received within telescoping arm 4 rather than clamp 5, and, additionally, the
combination of inner arm 13 and telescoping arm 4 does not describe the
support member of Claim 1 because telescoping arm 4 is rigidly attached to
clamp 5 rather than being slidable within clamp 5.
In contrast, the Examiner states that “the clamp of Watkins consists of
both parts ([telescoping arm] 4 and [clamp] 5) because they are rigidly
attached” (Answer, p. 4). “Therefore, the support (13) is slidably connected
within the clamp (4 and 5)” (Answer, pp. 4-5). The Examiner finds that
telescoping arm 4 is rigidly attached to clamp 5 and an appendage of clamp
5. Because inner arm 13 is slidably received within outer arm 16 of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013