Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
point, we observe that in Figure 4 of Law the rotatable
connection between the conduit housings (112) and (120)
likewise provides a “tang and clevis connection” as broadly
set forth in claim 1 on appeal.
Moreover, even if we were to accept appellant’s
assertions on pages 2 and 3 of the request concerning what
constitutes a “clevis,” we view the structure in Figure 4 of
Law to be responsive. In Figure 4 of Law the projecting
portion (118, 119) of the conduit housing (112) would have
been viewed as broadly constituting a “tang,” while the U-
shaped receiving portion defined on the second conduit housing
(120) would have been viewed as broadly being a “clevis.” In
this instance, the “clevis” includes (at annular channel 54) a
portion that is a
U-shaped, cylindrical element which provides structural
reinforcement completely around the tang circumference (at
119), but still provides for swivelling of the joint without
permitting unintended decoupling of the joint (col. 6, lines
1-8). In addition, the cylindrical portion of the “clevis” in
Figure 4 of Law would transfer transverse loads from one side
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007