Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
With regard to claim 2, the appellant argues that Olmstead
does not show the required load pads, but utilizes “load prongs”
(Brief, page 16). We agree with the examiner that the ends of
Olmstead’s members 42 constitute load pads inasmuch as their ends
are exposed to the extent necessary to engage the panel into
which the grommet is inserted (see column 4, lines 7 through 9
and column 2, lines 35 through 41). We add that Olmstead also
discloses a variation on this theme, for as seen in Figure 5 the
locking function also can be performed by an offset portion 74 of
the locking ring 72. This rejection of claim 2 is sustained.
Above, we have sustained the rejection of claim 4 under
Section 112, second paragraph, on the basis that the term “the
elements” in line 5 is indefinite. However, it is our view that
this problem is not of such magnitude as to cause us not to be
able to evaluate the claim from the standpoint of patentability
over the prior art relied upon. On the basis that the
indefiniteness problem will be overcome by way of acceptable
amendment, it is our conclusion that Olmstead does not disclose
the required peripheral sealing element “having a normal curved
position” and curving in the direction of the inner surface of
the grommet. We therefore will not sustain the Section 103
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007