Appeal No. 2003-1475
Application No. 09/352,250
1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner is of the view that the claim limitation
specifying that a portion of the first flexible spring plate
overlaps the overlap portion of a second flexible spring plate
has not been clearly disclosed in the specification, i.e., with
reference to Fig. 5, it is not clear how the first flexible
spring plate overlaps the overlap portion of the second flexible
portion.
We certainly appreciate the examiner’s point of view in this
matter (answer, pages 3, 7 and 8). However, we do not reach the
same conclusion. On the basis of the showing in Figs. 5 and 6
and the disclosure in the specification (pages 6 through 8), it
is our opinion that one skilled in the art at issue would readily
understand that portions of the first and second flexible spring
plates 34, 36 overlap one another to enable the plates to be
secured to the spring plate 18 by means of the plurality of
fasteners 32 (Fig. 5). Thus, appellants’ original disclosure is
determined to be clear and supportive of the claim content of
concern to the examiner since it would reasonably convey to an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007