Appeal No. 98-0197
Application 08/417,362
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. The examiner is of the view that
there is an inconsistency in the language of the preamble and
certain portions of the body of claim 1 when considered with
the recited subject matter of claim 4.
Claims 1 through 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Williams and
Hipkins.
The examiner is of the view that it would have been obvious to
include the cylindrical plug portion of Hipkins onto the
support bearing portion of Williams in order to obstruct any
grout from contacting the outside surface of the support
plate. Alter-natively, the examiner is of the view that it
would have been obvious to attach the washer portion of
Williams to the cylindrical plug portion of Hipkins with the
support bearing surface and nut bearing surface diverging at
an oblique angle
in order to have uniform stresses along the nut bearing
surface. See examiner’s answer, pages 5 and 6.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007