Appeal No. 1999-2363
Application 08/587,710
does not constitute a “fastener-element” under any reasonable
definition of this term, and Chartier does not provide any
indication that cap 10 and rubber washer 24 (or that cap 10
and screw or bolt fastener 12) have the radial float
relationship required by claim 32.
Thus, Chartier does not disclose, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of the
invention set forth in claims 5 and 32. Hence, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of these
claims, or of claims 6, 9 and 10 which depend from claim 5, as
being anticipated by Chartier.
We also shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 7 and 8, which depend from claim 5, as
being unpatentable over Chartier in view of Thiel. In short,
Thiel’s disclosure of a protective cap for a nut does not cure
the aforementioned deficiencies of Chartier with respect to
parent claim 5.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007