Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
presence of other elements such as a resilient member or a
flexible skirt.
Appellants’ second argument regarding the particular
construction of the gas cap itself is also without merit. In
the first place, claims 1 and 4 are directed to the removal
tool per se and therefore are not limited to a particular gas
cap construction. Furthermore, there is no recitation in claim
1 of any “channels.” Instead, this claim merely calls for
“channel walls.”
Contrary to appellants’ additional position, Grote’s
pockets 35 are in the form of two diametrically aligned, open
ended channels which are delimited by structures in the form
of walls to meet the limitation in claim 1 of “channel walls”
and also the limitation in claim 4 of “said channels.” With 4
further regard to claim 4, the recitation that a gas cap ridge
is “more narrow” than the channels does not distinguish from
4 The recitation of “said channels” lacks antecedent basis. For reviewing the
examiner’s art rejection, we have interpreted claim 4 to mean that the channels are
defined by the channel walls of claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007