Appeal No. 2002-0903
Application 09/359,916
limitations of claim 5 [brief, page 11]. The examiner responds
that Locati meets the limitations of claim 5 because it uses the
same frictional mechanism as appellant’s own invention [answer,
page 4]. Appellant responds that not only does Locati fail to
disclose that ferrule 20 is locked against rotation relative to
entry body 40, but instead, Locati discloses that ferrule 20 is
allowed to freely rotate while under axial compression [reply
brief, page 2].
We will not sustain either of the examiner’s rejections of
claim 5 or of claim 6 which depends from claim 5. We agree with
appellant that the findings of the examiner with respect to claim
5 are unsupported by the teachings of Locati. The examiner’s
bald assertion that the arrangement of Locati meets the invention
of claim 5 is at best an unsupported conclusion by the examiner
and at worst contradicted by the disclosure of Locati.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claim 4 based on the teachings of Locati and Elliman. We have
not sustained any of the other rejections. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 4-6 is affirmed-in-
part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007