Appeal No. 99-0650
Application 08/726,978
fastener comprising a bolt 1 having a shank portion 3 and a
head 2. The French ‘899 device further includes a journal
bearing 5 inserted into the bore in each sheet for receiving
the bolt, resilient means, in the form of a helical spring 4,
mounted between the shank portion and the journal bearing for
resiliently supporting the bolt in the journal bearing, and a
nut 13 on the bolt. The spring 4 transversely supports the
bolt, at least to some extend. The nut 13 compresses the
sheets between the nut and the head, with the tapered portion
of the head 2 bearing against a complementary surface on the
journal bearing. Based on the above, we consider that claim 8
“reads on” the French ‘899 device. It follows that we simply
do not agree with appellants’ argument on pages 6-7 of the
brief that French ‘899 does not disclose (1) a nut for
compressing the sheets between the nut and the head against
the journal bearing, or (2) a journal bearing as claimed. In 3
3With respect to the requirement of claim 8 that the
means for resiliently supporting the bolt is constructed of
metal, we note that appellants have not argued this limitation
as a distinction over the applied reference. Thus, it will be
assumed that this limitation is met by French ‘899. Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007