Appeal No. 99-0650
Application 08/726,978
circumferential array for placement about the shank portion of
the bolt. The examiner contends that the springs 4 and 19 of
French ‘899 respond to this claim limitation; however, we do
not agree. From our perspective, the examiner’s position
constitutes an improper and strained reading of the claim
language, especially when that language read in light of
appellant’s disclosure. While springs 5 and 19 of French ‘899
certainly constitute a plurality of springs, they are not
collectively circumferentially disposed about the shank
portion of the bolt. Rather, they are axially disposed along
the shank. In light of the above, we will not sustain the
standing § 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
French ‘899.
Independent claim 2 is directed to the Figure 3
embodiment of appellants’ invention and calls for resilient
means in the form of “a plurality of[] resilient annular
springs in a stack that extends between the ends of the
journal” (emphasis added). According to appellants’
disclosure, “[t]hese springs 42, appearing as small, hollow,
metal o-rings, are actually made of a tightly wound helical
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007