Appeal No. 1996-1049
Application No. 08/238,681
The examiner argues that Harrison’s column 6, lines 11-15
suggest that this reference is not limited to rectangular or
square lugs (answer, page 5). That portion of Harrison
states: “While numerous modification [sic, modifications] of
the disclosed embodiments will undoubtedly occur to those of
skill in the art, it should be understood that the spirit and
scope of the invention is to be limited solely by the appended
claims.” The examiner’s argument is not convincing because
the examiner has not explained why this disclosure would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of
arcuate elements which form a cylindrical bore which is
capable of receiving a threaded fastener.
The examiner argues that appellant’s claims 1, 2, 4-6 and
8 are directed to a molded product and that the particular
arcuate shape of the elements of the mold are not part of the
product as claimed and, therefore, are not a positive
limitation (answer, page 5). As indicated by page 5 of the
examiner’s answer, claim 1 as interpreted by the examiner
expressly recites that the distal ends of the elements of the
molded product are outwardly arcuate.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007