Appeal No. 1998-1349 Page 5
Application No. 08/455,859
In the instant case, we agree with the examiner that the bead
22 is a reinforcing rim and that the bead 16 is a countersink
base as broadly claimed and as such the provision of beads 16
and 22 does not lead a person of ordinary skill in the art
away from the path taken by the appellants.
Appellants also argue that the curl disclosed in Kraska
does not have an inward extending portion and a peripheral
edge. We do not agree. In our view, the curl disclosed in
Kraska does have an inward extending portion to at least some
extent and certainly includes a peripheral edge.
Appellants also argue that Kraska mandates that the walls
20 and 30 have small acute angles and the wall 28 not have an
angle more than four degrees with respect to the vertical
plane and that these teachings teach away from the claimed
countersink base and cover flange. It is our opinion that the
provision of acute angles for walls 20 and 30 and the
disclosure of wall 28 not having a angle more than four
degrees does not lead a person skilled in the art away from
the claimed invention because claim 1 does not recite any
limitations for the angles of the walls but merely recites “a
cover flange” and “a countersink.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007