Appeal 2007-1748
Application 10/679,908
Although Smith does not disclose using a retaining clip to connect the male
member 13 to the receiving member 14, it does disclose using a retaining clip 24
housed within an annular groove 34 in the bore 31 of body 21 of the two-part
receiving member 14 to hold the sleeve 22 in place relative to the main body 21 of
the two-part receiving member 14 (Smith, col. 6, ll. 21-32 and col. 8, ll. 46-48).
Smith discloses that the opening 61 in the member 14 includes an inclined
centering wall 62a at the receiving end thereof (Smith, col. 5, ll. 48-50) which
helps the tail 74 to easily fit through the opening 61.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the claimed
invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35
U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
During prosecution the PTO gives claims their “broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372,
54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013