Appeal No. 2006-1794
Application No. 10/119,186
Appellant further argues that Fenner lacks the claimed “rotation means for hand
attachment.” Again, we disagree. The claim does not even require actual hand attachment,
but, rather, that the rotation means is “for” hand attachment. However, the hand is not a
limitation of the claim. But the claim suggests that the mount has a rotation means so that a
user may attach the mount by hand. As indicated by the examiner, Fenner’s female fastener
12 “rotates” around the threads of the anchor screw 13 and the rotation is capable of being
effected by hand, as per the user turning transducer 100 by hand as he/she screws the
transducer onto the threads of anchor bolt 13.
Contrary to appellant’s view (brief-page 5, fourth line up from the bottom), it is
irrelevant that Fenner does not mention the term “hand” anywhere in its disclosure because
the mount in Fenner is “capable” of being rotated by hand for attachment to the surface.
That is, the integral structure of the transducer 100 and the anchor bolt 13 inserted into
fastener 12, may be used to effect attachment to the surface 170 by rotating the integral
structure in order to drive the point of the anchor bolt 13 into the surface.
Appellant also argues that the examiner has given a dual nature to Fenner’s female
fastener 12 in calling it the claimed “rotation means” as well as the “means for speaker
mounting.” Not only does the claim not preclude such a dual nature of an element described
in the prior art, but the examiner, in fact, has indicated the fastener 12 to be the claimed
“rotation means” while the hole in raised boss 9 has been indicated as the claimed “means for
speaker mounting.” We find the examiner’s interpretation to be reasonable since the
transducer 100 of Fenner, the identified “audio loudspeaker,” is mounted by way of the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007