Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
rejection with regard to this claim or claims 5 and 6, which
depend therefrom.
Claim 7 adds to claim 1 the limitation that the base element
has slits located between the load pads, which slits extend
partially through the base element. We agree with the appellant
that this is not taught or suggested by Olmstead, and therefore
we will not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 7 or, it
follows, of claims 9 through 11, which are dependent therefrom.
Claim 12 adds to claim 2 the limitation that the axially
outer surfaces of the load pads have exposed camming surfaces 61
for engaging the marginal edge surface of the hole into which the
grommet is installed. While Olmstead teaches that a portion of
the locking members be exposed, in our view these portions do not
“extend inwardly ... beyond said skin of the rib,” as required by
claim 12. The rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
not sustained.
Claims 13 and 14 are directed to the manner in which the
soft member and the rigid member are connected together. Claim
13 requires that they be “only mechanically” connected and claim
14 adds that there be no chemical or thermal bonding. Olmstead
is silent as to the use of any adhesive or the like in the
connection of the rigid member to the soft member, stating only
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007