Appeal No. 2006-2108
Application No. 10/392,418
extending bore slidably received over said projection to
define an overlap connection portion; and
a retention member substantially surrounding said
overlap connection portion and engaging said second vehicle
component wherein said retention member is movable between
an unlocked position where linear movement of said second
vehicle component relative to said first vehicle component
along said longitudinal axis is permitted and a locked
position where linear movement of said second vehicle
component relative to said first vehicle component along
said longitudinal axis is prohibited.
THE REFERENCE
Oetiker et al. (Oetiker) 5,284,368 Feb. 8, 1994
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 24-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oetiker.
OPINION
The rejection is affirmed as to claims 1-3, 9-12 and 24-27,
and reversed as to claims 4-6, 13 and 14.
The appellants’ argument regarding independent claim 1
includes the arguments directed toward independent claim 9 and
its dependent claim 10, and the appellants do not separately
argue claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 24-27. Also, the same argument is
applied to claim 25 that depends from claim 1 and claim 27 that
depends from claim 9. Hence, we limit our discussion of the
claims for which the rejection is affirmed to claims 1 and 25.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007