Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
appellant’s position as presented in the Request for Rehearing
(pages 3-4). Accordingly, we modify our earlier opinion by
now reversing the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6,
10 through 13, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kee in view of Utterberg.
However, after having carefully considered each of the
points of argument raised by appellant in his Request for
Rehearing in relation to the combination of Kee and Law, we
remain of the view expressed in our earlier decision that
claims 1 through 6, 10 through 13, 22 and 23 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) based on the collective teachings of Kee and Law.
Contrary to appellant’s assertions on page 2 of the request,
the clevis
set forth in independent claims 1, 22 and 23 on appeal is not
required to be “a cylindrical element structured to capture
the tang,” and nothing in the originally filed drawings or the
specification as originally filed requires that the clevis be
a cylindrical element, or requires that the clevis necessarily
provide “structural reinforcement completely around the tang
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007