Appeal No. 1996-3194
Application 08/218,802
could be changed to “wherein the force applying means is of
unitary construction with at least one of the first and second
parts.” We would interpret this phrase as requiring the
unitary construction argued by appellants.
We also note at this time that we do not agree with
the examiner’s position that any assembly of components
becomes a unitary construction after assembly. The phrase
“unitary construction” means that all parts making up the
assembly were constructed at the same time from the same
materials. Two separately manufactured components which are
affixed to each other do not result in a unitary construction
within the usual meaning of that phrase.
In summary, we agree only with the examiner’s position
that the wherein clause of claim 1 is technically met by the
clamp 44 and either case part 20 or 54 of DeBalko. Since the
examiner’s claim interpretation is reasonable, and since the
claim could be easily amended to limit its scope to what
appellants intended, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
fully met by the disclosure of DeBalko.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, the examiner
reads the claimed spring tab on any of the contact parts used
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007