Appeal No. 2002-1471 Page 11
Application No. 09/141,183
the figures is not sufficient to establish exactly what structure
appellant is relying upon. In addition, as asserted by the
examiner, we observe that appellants' claim 19 does not recite
means for securing the conductor and protective sleeve for
longitudinal movement, but instead, only recites "means for
securing” an electrical conductor and a protective sleeve to the
load beam. Appellants' claim, as broadly drafted, does not
distinguish between the structure of slide capture 260 connected
to the rigid portion 220 of the load beam, which permits movement
of sleeve 250 in a longitudinal direction, and the structure of
capture 240, connected to the resilient section 225 of the load
beam. The claim is broad enough to read upon Hagen's disclosed
structure for inhibiting the longitudinal movement of the
conductor or sleeve 250. As Hagen discloses a longitudinally
inhibiting capture, including elements 62, 64, 66, and 68, which
are adapted to secure the conductor sleeve to the resilient
section of the load beam (brief, page 5), we find that Hagen
discloses the same or equivalent structure as appellants "means
for securing." Accordingly, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 19, which
has not been successfully been rebutted by appellants. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007