Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 81. The Appellant did not set
forth any further arguments for patentability of dependent claims 82, 83, and
87-89. As such, these claims fall with claim 81. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
Rejection of claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77 as unpatentable over Schwartz and
Rivard
Dependent claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77 depend from independent
claims 1, 23, 33, 43, and 70, and as such, all include the limitation of at least one
sleeve nut threaded onto a stud shaft. The Examiner relied on Schwartz for the
disclosure of the invention of claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77, except for the
claimed stop comprising a chamfer (Answer 8). The Examiner relied on Rivard
for the claimed stop (Id.). The Appellant argues that neither Schwartz nor Rivard
teaches a sleeve nut and the Examiner’s interpretation of “sleeve nut” is overly
broad because it ignores the word “sleeve” entirely (Appeal Br. 13). We agree
with the Appellant.
As we found supra, a sleeve nut includes a sleeve portion and a head or nut
end portion. Both Schwartz and Rivard disclose a conventional hex nut (Findings
of Fact 6, 11). A conventional hex nut is not the same as the claimed sleeve nut
because it does not include a sleeve portion (Findings of Fact 7, 12). Thus, the
combination of Schwartz and Rivard fails to disclose using a sleeve nut on a
threaded end section of the stud shaft. As such, we cannot sustain this rejection of
claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013