Appeal No. 99-0650
Application 08/726,978
spring that is formed to be circular in plan and cross section
(as shown)” (specification, page 7). As with the examiner’s
position with respect to the resilient means limitation of
claim 1, the examiner contention here that the springs 4
and/or 19 of French ‘899 respond to the resilient means
limitation of claim 2 once again is based on an improper and
strained reading to the claim language in question. In our
view, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the
axially spaced helical springs 4 and/or 19 of French ‘899 as
corresponding to the requirement of claim 2 that the springs
comprise a plurality of resilient annular spring arranged in a
stack, especially when appellants’ claim language is read in
light of the underlying specification. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the standing § 102 rejection of claim 2, or claim
3 that depends therefrom, as being anticipated by French ‘899.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claim 8, which more broadly claims
the resilient means. French ‘899 discloses a composite
structure comprising two sheets 9, 23 held together by a
fastener inserted through a bore in each sheet, with the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007