Appeal No. 96-2653
Application No. 08/395,681
of the cylindrical portion of the elastomeric element so as to be
engageable with the supporting structure to limit compression of
the flange of the elastomeric element.
We view the claims on appeal as precisely defining a grommet
of interrelated parts (i.e., metal sleeve 12 and elastomeric
element 14). From the language of claim 1 highlighted above, it
is our opinion that these interrelated parts are recited in their
disassembled condition to be later assembled to form an installed
grommet. Thus, we view the claims on appeal, as reciting a
grommet "kit" (as shown if Figure 1), not an assembled grommet
(as shown in Figures 2-4). See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958-
59, 189 USPQ 149, 151-52 (CCPA 1976). As with the kit in the
Venezia case, each part of the grommet herein is interrelated
with the other.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 and
2 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Stewart (answer,
p. 4), the examiner found that
Schmitt discloses a grommet comprising a sleeve 12 and an
elastomeric element 9 having an inwardly extending flange 11
which moves outwardly as the sleeve is moved relative to the
flange. The outer diameter of the cylindrical portion 10 of
the elastomeric body 9 of Schmitt must be less than the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007