Appeal No. 1998-0491
Application 08/125,002
substantially transversely, as claimed. As to claims 37 and4
39, we likewise conclude that one having ordinary skill in the
art would not have considered the overall substantially L-
shaped cross-sectional ring configuration of Reik as
responding to or suggestive of a substantially cylindrical
(first) section having an axial end
surface provided with recesses; material of the first section
being displaced substantially radially, as claimed. With
respect to claim 42, 44, and 46, it also our determination
that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have
considered the overall substantially L-shaped cross-sectional
ring configuration of Reik as responding to or suggestive of a
tubular section of sheet metal having an axial end surface
provided with at least one recess (or blind bore in claim 47);
sheet metal of the tubular section being displaced, as
claimed. Relative to claims 43 and 45, it is apparent to us
that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have
4Consistent with the underlying disclosure, we understand the process recitation
of “displaced” in the context used in appellants’ claims to denote a change of position
of material in the claimed article, and not a removal of material. Thus, it is apparent
to this panel of the board that the resulting article, as claimed, would include a
recognizable characteristic feature of displaced material.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007