Appeal No. 1999-2774
Application 08/794,337
circumference,” as urged on page 2 of the request. In this
regard, we direct appellant to our discussion of this issue on
pages 6 through 8 of our decision mailed September 28, 2000,
and again point out that the originally filed disclosure of
the application does not even use the terminology “tang,”
“clevis,” or “tang and clevis connection.”
In further support of our determination in the decision
mailed September 28, 2000 regarding the combination of Kee and
Law, we observe that a “tang” is defined as “a long and 1
slender
projecting strip, tongue, or prong forming part of an object,
such as a chisel, file, knife, etc., and serving as a means of
attachment for another part, as a handle or stock,” while a
“clevis” is defined as “a U-shaped yoke at the end of a chain
or rod, between the ends of which a lever, hook, etc., can be
pinned or bolted.” Thus, contrary to appellant’s argument in
both the brief and this Request for Rehearing, a clevis would
not be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as
1 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language, Portland House, 1989.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007