Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
Claim 25
The appellants argue that Oetiker achieves locking by moving
the sleeve in the axial direction rather than by rotating the
sleeve (brief, pages 12 and 15; reply brief, pages 5-8). The
appellants are incorrect. Oetiker discloses that the sleeve is
moved in the axial direction and then, to achieve the locked
clamping position, is rotated to align its notches with the
collar’s locking members (col. 6, lines 21-31).
We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 25 and 27.
Claims 4-6, 13 and 14
Claims 4 and 13 require that the retention member comprises
a rotatable locking cap having a central bore with a greater
diameter at its inner end adjacent to the first vehicle
component’s main body than at its outer end.
The examiner argues that “adjacent” does not require contact
but, rather includes “not distant nearby” (answer, page 5).
Thus, the examiner argues, the end of Oetiker’s sleeve farthest
from the main body can be considered to be adjacent to the main
body and, therefore, correspond to the appellant’s inner end,
while the end that is closer to the main body and has a
relatively small diameter (figures 3A and 4A) can be considered
to correspond to the appellants’ outer end (answer, page 5). The
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007