Appeal No. 2001-1898
Application No. 08/835,945
(3) Claims 47, 49, 52, 54 and 55, anticipated by Cure, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
(4) Claims 57 and 59 to 62, unpatentable over Stenberg in view
of Fox, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection (1)
Claim 55, and its parent claims 52 and 54, read:
52. A device for securing an object having a secured access
to its interior to an end of a hollow post or pipe, comprising a
bar capable of being transversely disposed in the hollow post or
pipe and attachable to the object by a removable threaded
fastener which has been passed through the secured access in the
object and axially disposed in the hollow post or pipe, the bar
capable of being further disposed so that its rotation is
substantially impeded before it is attached by the fastener.
54. A device according to claim 52 wherein the bar is
further comprised of a transverse bore to receive the fastener.
55. A device according to claim 54 wherein rotation of the
bar is substantially impeded by a sleeve placed over the hollow
post or pipe.
The examiner asserts that claim 55 (and claim 56 dependent
thereon) are indefinite because, as we understand it, the scope
of the claim is unclear in that it is not clear whether the
sleeve is being claimed. Appellants contend that the scope of
claim 55 is reasonably ascertainable, and that (brief, page 6):
Claims 55 and 56 recite that the "rotation of the
bar is substantially impeded by a sleeve." This
describes a bar which, if it is disposed in a post as
described in claim 52, would not be able to rotate if a
sleeve were to be placed over the post.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007