Appeal No. 2005-0482 Page 4
Application No. 09/875,787
Appellants argue that Hollis does not anticipate claim 1 because the locking ring
29 of Hollis is not secured to the outer circumferential surface of the terminal barrel
portion (bushing) 21 and thus fails to meet the limitation of an annular retaining ring
“having an inner circumferential surface secured to the outer circumferential surface of
said barrel portion” of claim 1 (brief, pages 4-5). We disagree. The deformation of the
lead locking ring 29 from the downward pressure and heating from the swaging action,
in cooperation with the locking action from the extension of the end 24 of bushing 21
over the locking ring, will secure1 it to the outer circumferential surface of bushing 21.
Appellants also argue that Hollis lacks the retaining ring “longitudinally engaging
said terminal” as set forth in claim 1. On the contrary, Hollis’ Figure 2 clearly illustrates
the longitudinally-extending inner circumferential surface of the locking ring 29 engaging
the longitudinally-extending outer circumferential surface of the terminal bushing 21.
This meets the above-mentioned “longitudinally engaging” limitation of claim 1. To the
extent that appellants’ argument on page 5 of the brief is based on some definition of
“longitudinally engaging” which precludes the afore-mentioned arrangement of the
1 Consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition, we understand “secure” to mean “to make firm,
fast, tight, etc.” or “to put under restraint.” Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (Simon
& Schuster, Inc. 1988).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007