Appeal No. 2005-2335 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/333,711
Note that Nakagaki teaches, in column 4, lines 46-55, that the engagement of the
plate 21' with flange portion 12' can be carried out by pressurized insertion or clamping
the U-shaped edge portions 15 against plate 21'. According to Nakagaki,
[w]hen pressurized insertion is the technique used, that is by
forcing plate 21' into slot 16 and then conforming flange
portion 12' to plate 21' under pressure, so that at least one
front end portion 151 of the U-shaped edge portions 15 can
be clamped or closed down relative to plate 21', for example,
by a punch clamp.
Such clamping of the edge portions 15 relative to the plate 21' would cause the bearing
surfaces of the U-shaped edge portions to approach each other at the front end portion
151 so as to form a “wedge” (a tapering of the slot width) at least at the front end portion
151.
In light of the above, we conclude that Nakagaki does, in fact, disclose the wedge
as set forth in the last paragraph of claim 1. Appellants’ argument that claim 1 is not
anticipated by Nakagaki is thus not persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
claim 1, as well as claims 9 and 13, which appellants have not argued separately apart
from claim 1, as being anticipated by Nakagaki. As our rationale for sustaining the
rejection differs somewhat from that articulated by the examiner, we denominate our
affirmance of the rejections as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 41.50(b) to
give appellants an opportunity to respond thereto.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007