Appeal No. 2003-1946
Application 09/156,952
which are perpendicular to the body outer surface would not
interfere with the sliding of the outer sleeve ridges between the
tray ridges.1 If anything, the teaching that the sleeve outer
ridges produce a locking type action with the tray ridges
(col. 3, lines 38-40) would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, making the lower edges of both the
sleeve outer ridges and the tray ridges perpendicular to the
outer surfaces of, respectively, the sleeve and the tray, to
maximize the contact area of the abutting ridges and thereby
maximize the locking action.
The appellants argue that the lowermost edges of their
anti-rotation lugs (18) must be substantially perpendicular to
the outer surface of the body (12) to ensure that the vial (10)
will not 1) penetrate too deeply into the bores (52, 62) of the
sample vial tray, causing the vial to jam in the apparatus, and
2) axially translate into an improper position in the vial
sleeve (64) (brief, pages 6-7). There is no textual support in
the appellants’ specification for this argument. Thus, the
argument is unpersuasive as being mere attorney argument. See In
1
1 Some rotation of the sleeve may be needed for the sleeve
ridges to be positioned between the tray ridges, but such
rotation also would be needed if the edges of the ridges were
beveled.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007