Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
unpatentable over Mesenhöller in view of Kentish and Glineur
and claims 5 and 7 as being unpatentable over Mesenhöller in
view of Kentish and Henson or Packer.
Independent claim 21, unlike claim 1, does not require
that the lock stem have a terminal first end disposed in the
first bore. Rather, with regard to the retaining structure,
claim 21 recites
a lock stem coupled to the rod and axially movable
in the engagement slot and receivable in the
retaining slot to retain the rod in its non-engaged
condition, wherein the engagement slot and the
retaining slot respectively have central
longitudinal planes inclined with respect to one
another and forming an angle therebetween of less
than 90 .o
The examiner and appellants appear to be in agreement
that Mesenhöller (first embodiment) meets all of the
limitations of claim 21 with the exception of the angle of
inclination of the central longitudinal planes of the
engagement and retaining slots being less than 90 . Witho
respect to the angle between the slots, the examiner notes
that Henson and Packer disclose bayonet-type slots wherein the
retaining slot is inclined with respect to the engagement slot
by less than 90 degrees and appellants do not contest this
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007