Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
requiring “a cylindrical element structured to capture a
tang,” as argued, for example, on page 2 of this request and
would not necessarily be required to provide structural
reinforcement completely around a tang circumference, or be
required to carry transverse loading diametrically, from side-
to-side of a joint, through a continuous span of material
arranged in a hoop direction, as argued on pages 2 and 3 of
the request.
Looking at Law, Figures 1-3, it remains our opinion that
the projecting portion (18, 40) of the conduit housing (12)
would have been viewed in its broadest reasonable
interpretation as constituting a “tang,” while the U-shaped
receiving portions defined by structures (42, 52, 60) of the
second conduit housing (20) would have been viewed as broadly
being a “clevis,” and that the “tang and clevis connection”
formed when these components are brought together to define a
raintight and oiltight swivel connection is “capable of low
friction rotation while maintaining a fluid tight seal at the
interface between the first and second parts,” as set forth,
for example, in independent claim 1 on appeal. As a further
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007