Appeal No. 2006-1794 Application No. 10/119,186 The examiner, correctly, in our view, identifies column 4, lines 49-64, of Fenner to show that, for example, the alternative nut and bolt assembly shown in Figure 1B of Fenner meets this claim language. That is, where the bolt in the nut and bolt assembly in Fenner is the “single anchor screw,” it clearly “includes threading suitable for attachment to an anchor bolt element” (wherein the nut may be the “anchor bolt element”) and this nut, or “anchor bolt element” is “in combination with an anchor bolt element for stable attachment to surfaces requiring an anchor bolt,” as claimed. Appellant’s argument anent claim 4, at pages 6-7 of the brief, provides nothing that would show any error in this interpretation. Rather, appellant stresses an alleged lack of any showing in Fenner of some means for hand attachment. However, as explained supra, the claim does not actually require a “hand” or an actual hand attachment, but rather a rotation means “for” hand attachment. The transducer/mount assembly described in Figure 1 of Fenner is clearly “capable” of rotation by hand, thus effecting a “mount incorporating rotation means for hand attachment to said surface,” as broadly claimed. Thus, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b). The examiner’s decision is affirmed. -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007