Appeal No. 1996-3194 Application 08/218,802 could be changed to “wherein the force applying means is of unitary construction with at least one of the first and second parts.” We would interpret this phrase as requiring the unitary construction argued by appellants. We also note at this time that we do not agree with the examiner’s position that any assembly of components becomes a unitary construction after assembly. The phrase “unitary construction” means that all parts making up the assembly were constructed at the same time from the same materials. Two separately manufactured components which are affixed to each other do not result in a unitary construction within the usual meaning of that phrase. In summary, we agree only with the examiner’s position that the wherein clause of claim 1 is technically met by the clamp 44 and either case part 20 or 54 of DeBalko. Since the examiner’s claim interpretation is reasonable, and since the claim could be easily amended to limit its scope to what appellants intended, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as fully met by the disclosure of DeBalko. With respect to dependent claims 2 and 3, the examiner reads the claimed spring tab on any of the contact parts used -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007