Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
bond” as described and claimed by appellant is not a
“permanent bond” since it is not intended to last indefinitely
without change and the key and handle can be easily separated
when desired without destroying any portion of either of the
components. Thus, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
66, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, because the thermoexpansive clamping
arrangement disclosed by appellant clearly does not provide a
“permanent bond” between the key and the spherical handle.
Further, under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection against
appellant's claims 63-65 and 67-70:
Claims 63-65 and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was
not described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
appellant, at the time the invention was filed, had possession
of the claimed invention. Specifically, appellant has failed
to disclose a “permanent bond” as set forth in claim 63 and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007