Appeal 2007-2227
Application 10/778,963
Moreover, Cayton specifically states that the “‘hook means,’ as used herein, is to
be construed to include all structures described” and useable as equivalents. Col.
7, line 32-36. Further, Cayton stated that the hook means may be defined by
alternative structures able to releaseably ensnare respective portions of a base
necklace, thus providing an express suggestion that alternative structures could be
used. Col. 7, ll. 20-26.
In view of the above, Appellant's argument that Cayton and Cloud do not
disclose mirror image spirals in claim 1 is not persuasive, and we affirm the
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 requires joining multiple extensions essentially of the size and
shape presented in claim 1. See claim 11, supra.
Appellant argues that “[n]either reference teaches the use of multiple
descrete extensions.” (Br. 10-11.)
As pointed out by the Examiner, Cayton “does indeed teach of using
multiple discrete extensions . . . he, however, does not expressly teach that said
extensions . . . can be directly attached to one another” (Answer 12). This is
shown in Fig. 3 of Cayton (see Cayton, col. 7, ll. 1-18). In our opinion, the skilled
worker would have recognized that other arrangements, in addition to that shown
in Fig. 3, could be utilized to achieve the same purpose in extending the length of
the necklace (Cayton, at col. 1, ll. 10-15), including arrangements where the
extensions are directly connected as required by claim 11. Furthermore, “[i]t is
well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless
a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124
USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, the duplication of the necklace
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013