Appeal No. 1999-0242
Application 08/643,829
flat surfaces are subject to a shear force of the sort defined
in claim 28. The examiner’s conclusion that they are
(presumably under principles of inherency) is necessarily
predicated on a number of assumptions as to the structural
relationships between Sackett’s extension 54, recess 56, cross
bolt 54' and cross bolt
apertures. The problem here is that Sackett does not provide
any meaningful disclosure which supports these assumptions.
The relevant disclosure in the reference is ambiguous at best
and
merely holds out the possibility that the opposing flat
surfaces on extension 54 and recess 56 are subject to a shear
force as required in claim 28. This mere possibility is not
sufficient to meet the claim limitations in question.
Thus, the examiner’s determination that Sackett discloses
each and every element of the invention set forth in claim 28
is unsound. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 28, or of claims 30
through 32 which depend therefrom, as being anticipated by
Sackett.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007