Appeal No. 2006-1794
Application No. 10/119,186
The examiner, correctly, in our view, identifies column 4, lines 49-64, of Fenner to
show that, for example, the alternative nut and bolt assembly shown in Figure 1B of Fenner
meets this claim language. That is, where the bolt in the nut and bolt assembly in Fenner is
the “single anchor screw,” it clearly “includes threading suitable for attachment to an anchor
bolt element” (wherein the nut may be the “anchor bolt element”) and this nut, or “anchor
bolt element” is “in combination with an anchor bolt element for stable attachment to
surfaces requiring an anchor bolt,” as claimed.
Appellant’s argument anent claim 4, at pages 6-7 of the brief, provides nothing that
would show any error in this interpretation. Rather, appellant stresses an alleged lack of any
showing in Fenner of some means for hand attachment. However, as explained supra, the
claim does not actually require a “hand” or an actual hand attachment, but rather a rotation
means “for” hand attachment. The transducer/mount assembly described in Figure 1 of
Fenner is clearly “capable” of rotation by hand, thus effecting a “mount incorporating
rotation means for hand attachment to said surface,” as broadly claimed.
Thus, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007