Appeal No. 2005-0489 Page 9
Application No. 10/144,987
Further, on page 8, in describing the embodiment of Figures 1-4, the appellant’s
specification discloses that the lower fitting includes a sleeve 21 “having an internal
passageway 23 having dimensions permitting it to easily slide up and down over the
outer periphery of the shaft 2.” In the embodiment illustrated in Figure 5, the appellant
discloses an alternative construction of the lower fitting comprising a clamping
mechanism 33 which includes two legs 35, 37 having facing teeth 39, 41. On pages 9
and 10, the appellant’s specification states:
As the clamping mechanism 33 is designed, it is intended
that the legs 35 and 37 be squeezed together until the
surfaces 43 and 45 tightly clamp about the periphery of a
shaft preventing any rotation or reciprocation with respect
thereto. As the clamping mechanism 33 is used in
accordance with the teachings of the present invention, it is
oriented as shown in Figure 5 with the surfaces 43 and 45
clearly spaced away from the periphery of the shaft 2 so that
the fitting 30 may freely reciprocate up and down the shaft in
accordance with the teachings of the present invention.
The appellant’s specification does not expressly teach that the lower mounting
substantially precludes the lower fitting from lateral movement with respect to the axis of
elongation, such lateral movement being limited by slight spacing between said lower
mounting and said body, the slight spacing being provided solely to facilitate free
movement of the lower fitting along the length of the flagpole, as recited in claims 28-32.
In the portions cited above, the specification refers to dimensions permitting easy
sliding, a loosely fitting lower fitting, and surfaces of a clamping mechanism “clearly
spaced” from the periphery of the shaft. We question whether this disclosure, even
coupled with the illustrations in Figures 1-3 and 5, is sufficient to convey to one of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007