Appeal No. 99-2104 Page 6
Application No. 08/759,983
(as shown) beveled portion adjacent to rupture groove 40 or the
beveled portion immediately adjacent to threaded portion 32.
But neither of these shoulders is capable of “cooperating” in
any way with inward projection 30 of the sleeve during
stretching of the mandrel, no matter how broadly the quoted
term is interpreted.
Considering the situation from another perspective, the
guidance provided by the appellant’s specification establishes
that the ends of the first and second portions are defined by
the rupture groove, and the claim requires that the shoulder
form the end of the first portion. This means that the
“shoulder” in
La Torre must be the beveled portion immediately to the right
(as shown) of rupture groove 40. However, in such case the
rupture groove is not located “between” the shoulder and the
head, as also is required by the claim.
In our view, neither of the constructions upon which the
rejection appears to have been based are tenable. Further in
this regard, considering the groove described by La Torre as
“trapping groove 46" to be a rupture groove on the basis that a
rupture could occur if the shank were put under a large enough
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007