Appeal 2007-1167
Application 10/784,056
brush guard and a releasable clamp slidably connected to the shaft of a grass
trimming device (Blevins, col. 2, ll. 39-50; col. 3, ll. 47-51). Wright
discloses a support member slidably connected within a clamp connected to
the shaft of a grass trimming device (Wright, col. 6, ll. 5-31). Bridgers
concerns aspects of dependent Claims 3, 8, and 14 that we need discuss in
reaching our decision.
Appellant argues that the prior art fails to meet two limitations. First,
Appellant argues that the prior art fails to disclose “a support member
slidably connected within the releasable clamp” as required by Claims 1 and
6 (Br. App. A). Second, Appellant argues that the prior art fails to disclose
that “the flexible brush member is positioned at a 90 degree angle to the
shaft” as required by Claims 6 and 11 (Br. App. A).
First, we address whether the prior art discloses “a support member
slidably connected within the releasable clamp” as required by Claims 1 and
6 (Br. App. A). Wright discloses a spatial guide 20 (support member) that
slides within a pair of bolts 62 and a rigid block 28 (clamp) (Wright, col. 6,
ll. 5-16). The rigid block can be adjusted to slide up and down the shaft of a
weed trimming device. Appellant argues that “the device 20 however does
not slide within the rigid block 28 and instead slides on bolts 62 that are
attached to rigid block 28” (Br., p. 9). Appellant, however, does not take
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013