Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
driver member 20 and releasably attached socket 12, the latter of
which matably engages a “first workpiece” consisting of nut 14.
There is no question that both of these interpretations of the
claim language are enabled by appellant’s disclosure.
The other independent claims, 24 and 44, both recite
“an annular driver member operative to matably engage the con-
ventional socket sized and adapted to matably engage the first
workpiece.” The examiner seems to interpret the antecedent of
the expression “sized and adapted” as the “annular driver
member,” but it is evident, particularly when read in light of
the disclosure at page 18, lines 13 to 15, that it is the
“conventional socket” which is “sized and adapted to matably
engage the first workpiece.” Such engagement is clearly enabled
by appellant’s disclosure.
The appellant has not responded to the examiner’s
rejection of claims 21 and 41 concerning non-enablement of the
“resiliently urging” limitation. Rejection (1) will therefore be
sustained as to those claims.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will be sustained as to
claims 21 and 41, but not as to claims 1 to 5, 9 to 13, 15, 17 to
20, 22 to 25, 27 to 40 and 42 to 44.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007