Ex Parte CHISNELL - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2004-1361                                                        
          Application No. 09/430,574                                                  
          i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or               
          fully met by the reference.  Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713            
          F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,            
          465 U.S. 1026 (1984).                                                       
               Schnell discloses a vibration isolating clamp apparatus 176            
          (see Figures 7 and 8) for connecting a fluid-bearing tube to a              
          motor vehicle component.  The tube includes an end 179 having a             
          tapered bead 188, and the motor vehicle component includes an               
          aperture 36 in its sidewall 34 for receiving the tube end.  The             
          clamp apparatus comprises a retainer member 172 having a clamp              
          attachment region 174 and a tube retaining region 176.  The clamp           
          attachment region 174 contains an aperture 178 for receiving a              
          bolt 22 adapted to be threaded into the sidewall of the motor               
          vehicle component and the tube retaining region includes an                 
          aperture 184 for receiving the end of the tube.  The tube-                  
          receiving aperture 184 defines a chamfer 198 at its lower end               
          which bears against the tapered bead 188 on the tube end 179 to             
          urge it against the sidewall of the motor vehicle component in              
          the area about the aperture 36.                                             
               In applying Schnell to reject claim 1 (see page 2 in the               
          final rejection and pages 3 and 4 in the answer), the examiner              
          reads the limitations in the claim relating to the female                   

                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007