Appeal 2006-1453
Application 10/662,344
Claims 1, 2, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Kraus.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Boik in view of Mejlso.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being upantentable
over Boik in view of Jaeger.
Claims 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Boik in view of Mejlso and Jaeger.
ISSUES
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has established that
claims on appeal are anticipated or unpatentable over the prior art of record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Boik discloses a hole plug or closure 22 with a head portion 24 and a
foot portion 27. A pressure ring or wall 64, 68 forms a column projecting
from the back surface of the head portion inside the circle of foot portions.
In Figures 14 and 15, Boik shows backup lugs 75 and 77. We note that the
backup lugs do not connect each of the plate members to the column as
required by the claims on appeal.
Kraus discloses a closure cover with a head for a holding element 5
composed of spring arms 7. The spring arms 7 with catch member 6
correspond to Appellant’s foot portions. Kraus also discloses a column 8′.
See Figure 6. A supporting portion 9 extends from the backside of the foot
portion 5, 7 but it does not connect the column 8′ with the foot portion 5, 7.
Mejlso has been cited by the Examiner as showing wavy-shaped
support members. It is our further finding that Mejlso discloses a hole plug
with 2 foot portions 35, 39, a column projecting from the head 37, and a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013