Appeal No. 1998-0328
Application No. 08/383,251
deformation of a portion of said fastening pin” (emphasis
added). Contrary to our understanding of the interpretation3
proposed by appellants’ counsel at oral hearing, the plain
unambiguous language of this claim limitation provides that
the deformation of claimed portion of the fastening pin non-
rotatably attaches or, to use appellants’ words, non-rotatably
joins the pin stump to the ball. This structure is not taught
or suggested by any of the applied references.
In the Mitchell reference, the pin member (25), which
corresponds to appellants’ pin stump, is non-rotatably
attached to the ball (12) by engagement of the non-circular
pin section (29) with the mating aperture in the upper end of
the ball as seen from Figures 7 and 8 of the Mitchell
drawings. Thus, Mitchell’s pin member is not non-rotatably
attached to the ball by deformation of any part of the pin
member.
3Although not illustrated in the application drawings,
this limitation is recited verbatim in original claim 1 as
filed. Therefore, there is support for this limitation to
satisfy the description requirement in the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C.
§ 112. See In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1238-1239, 176 USPQ
331, 332 (CCPA 1973), Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992) and the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 608.01 (7 Ed. July, 1998). th
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007