Ex parte PHILLIPS - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1999-0242                                                        
          Application 08/643,829                                                      

          flat surfaces are subject to a shear force of the sort defined              
          in claim 28.  The examiner’s conclusion that they are                       
          (presumably under principles of inherency) is necessarily                   
          predicated on a number of assumptions as to the structural                  
          relationships between Sackett’s extension 54, recess 56, cross              
          bolt 54' and cross bolt                                                     
          apertures.  The problem here is that Sackett does not provide               
          any meaningful disclosure which supports these assumptions.                 
          The relevant disclosure in the reference is ambiguous at best               
          merely holds out the possibility that the opposing flat                     
          surfaces on extension 54 and recess 56 are subject to a shear               
          force as required in claim 28.  This mere possibility is not                
          sufficient to meet the claim limitations in question.                       
               Thus, the examiner’s determination that Sackett discloses              
          each and every element of the invention set forth in claim 28               
          is unsound.  Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing                 
          35 U.S.C.  102(b) rejection of claim 28, or of claims 30                   
          through 32 which depend therefrom, as being anticipated by                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007