Interference No. 104,186
Juliano's claim 13, which corresponds exactly to count 2, should not have been
added to this proceeding as a corresponding claim.
In its brief, Cleveland urges that a device such as Juliano's which has a
spring held and coupled to a u-joint by end projections which are bent radially
inward does not suggest or disclose, and does not make obvious, its device
characterized by continuing the end coils of the spring in a circumferential manner
and placing them into retaining grooves. Likewise, a device which has a spring held
and coupled to a u-joint by continuing the end coils of the spring in a circumferential
manner and placing them into retaining grooves does not suggest or disclose, or
make obvious, a spring held and coupled to a u-joint by end projections which are
bent radially inward.
We are of the opinion that Juliano's motion to add count 2, which was treated
by the APJ as a motion to substitute count 2 for count 1, should not have been
granted because count 2 recites a spring projection at each end of a coil spring and
Cleveland's apparatus has no spring projection. As such, count 2 does not define
common interfering subject matter between the parties. 37 C.F.R. § 1.601(f).
A projection is a part which juts out from a structure, and it is considered that
end coils 33 of spring 26 in Cleveland do not jut out, inwardly or outwardly, from the
spring. We do not agree with Juliano that the end coils 33 jut out from the spring 26
because they are of reduced diameter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007