Appeal 2006-3059
Application 10/293,725
above, that the thread diameter of fastener 24 is slightly larger than the
aperture diameter and that the fastener threadably engages the aperture.
That such engagement occurs without shaving, penetrating, or otherwise
damaging the anti-corrosion coating on the fastener appears to be a
consequence of providing a depending sleeve 38, which does not present the
sharp edges of a hole (Hasan, col. 1, ll. 62-65), to engage the threads of the
fastener (Hasan, col. 2, ll. 45-51).
In light of the above, Appellants have not demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Hasan. The rejection
of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 6 depending from claim 1, is sustained.
Turning now to claim 7, the Examiner contends that, in the illustrated
embodiment of Hasan’s plate, the conically-shaped depression 20 and sleeve
38 together respond to the “lip” recited in the claim and points out that the
flat section of the main body 12 of the plate is immediately adjacent such lip
(Answer 5). In the alternative, the Examiner refers to Hasan’s teaching that,
“[i]f other fasteners are used, such as those having flat heads, the flat head is
preferably located on the main body 12, and the depression 20 is not
required” (Hasan, col. 3, ll. 57-60), in which case the sleeve 38 would
respond to the recited “lip,” with the flat section of the main body 12 of the
plate being immediately adjacent such lip (Answer 5-6). Both positions are
well taken.
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013