Appeal No. 2003-0040 5
Application No. 09/314,079
it to a desired adjusted vertical position just below the top of the concrete floor, and a
set screw 26 is used to secure the position of the outer body relative to the inner body.
Next, a plug 20 is installed in the top of the inner body. Finally, a cap 27 having a
coverplate 31 is installed over the outer body to close off the top of the outer body (see
Figures 10 and 11). As explained in the paragraph spanning columns 3 and 4, the cap
and coverplate are held in position by a bolt 33 that passes through a central opening
32 in the cap and coverplate and is threaded into an opening 22 in the plug 20. As can
be seen by comparing Figures 10 and 11, the cap and coverplate may be tipped to one
side to adjust to the pitch of the floor if the floor is not level. In order to facilitate such
tipping, the central opening 32 is elongated (column 3, lines 64-66).
In rejecting the appealed claims, the examiner finds correspondence between
the coverplate 31 of Papp and appellant’s mat and between the cap 27 of Papp and
appellant’s roadway cover. It also appears that the examiner equates the bolt 33 of
Papp to one of appellant’s fasteners 141 for securing the mat to the cover. The
examiner acknowledges that Papp does not meet the limitations of the appealed claims
calling for a mat having at least three circumferentially spaced holes, and a plurality of
cooperating fasteners for securing the mat to the cover. To make up for these
deficiencies, the examiner turns to either Dannhauser (rejections (1) to (4), (11) and
(12)) or Johnson (rejections (5) to (10)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007