Appeal No. 2004-0053 Page 11
Application No. 09/678,635
Frisbie's check or holding stud 5 having an acorn-shaped head 8, neck 12 and a
reduced portion 9 lacks the claimed conical portion aft of the enlarged portion and sized
to stoppingly engage the engagement aperture. In that regard, Frisbie's reduced portion
is shown in Figures 1 and 3 as being curved not conical.3 With regard to claim 9, it is
our determination that Frisbie lacks a support member having a stop accommodation
bore through and beyond which the extension may pass in order to engage the
engagement aperture. The examiner's attempt to read this limitation on Frisbie's lip 10
of rubber tip 2 is without merit since lip 10 of the rubber tip 2 engages the reduced
portion 9 of check or holding stud 5 and therefore must be considered to be part of the
claimed anchoring structure.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2,
8 and 9, and claims 3 and 4 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frisbie is reversed.
3 The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, (1982) defines "conical" as "[o]f,
relating to, or shaped like a cone" and defines "cone" as "[t]he surface generated by a straight line, the
generator, passing through a fixed point, the vertex, and moving along a fixed curve, the directrix."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007