Appeal 2006-3320
Application 10/417,638
element 12 as “a bolt” but, this does not preclude the elements [crimp 42]
from reading on “a cap” in the context of the claims. [Answer 5]
Neither of Bydalek’s crimps (42 (fig. 11), 54 (fig. 2)) is disclosed as serving
the function of cover or protection. Instead, crimp 54 is disclosed as functioning to
prevent inadvertent separation of the bolt and pressure ring while preserving a
degree of longitudinal and lateral play between them (col. 2, ll. 52-56). The
Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered a flange having a crimp which serves that function to be a cap as that
term is most broadly construed in view of the Appellant’s Specification. Crimp 42
is merely disclosed as overlapping the pressure ring’s flange (col. 3, ll. 60-64).
The function of crimp 42 is not disclosed, but appears to be the same as that of
crimp 54. The Examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art,
giving the Appellant’s claim term “cap” its broadest reasonable interpretation in
view of the Appellant’s Specification, would have considered a bolt having a crimp
which serves that function to be a cap.
The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the Appellant’s claimed invention over Bydalek.
Rejection over Goiny in view of Bydalek
The Examiner does not make an obviousness argument regarding the
requirement in independent claim 20 of “a cap that is telescoped over the body” or
the requirement in claim 8 of “a cap that holds said washer to said body” (Final
Rejection 10-11). As discussed above, the Examiner has not established that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Goiny’s clamp or Bydalek’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013