Appeal No. 1999-2363
Application 08/587,710
b) claims 5, 6, 9, 10 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Chartier; and
c) claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chartier in view of Thiel.
Reference is made to the appellants’ main brief (Paper
No. 20) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer
(Paper Nos. 15 and 25) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.2
The first rejection rests on the examiner’s determination
that claims 5 through 10 and 32 are indefinite due to their
failure to recite as part of the claimed combination the
“receptor” mentioned in independent claims 5 and 32.
According to the examiner, the nut-element cannot be secured
to the nut-element retainer as recited in claim 5 and the
fastener-element cannot be secured to the fastener-element
2 The reply brief filed by the appellants (Paper No. 23)
does not contain any argument relating to the appealed
rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007