Appeal 2006-3320
Application 10/417,638
flange/crimp or bolt/crimp to be a cap. We therefore conclude that the Examiner
has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the
inventions claimed in claim 20 and its dependent claims 21-23, or claims 18 and 19
that depend from claim 8.
Remand
The Appellant’s claim 24 requires “a cap provided with a crimp to form a
clamp”. The claim does not relate the cap to any other element of the claim.
Hence, that claim does not appear to adequately set forth the metes and bounds of
the claimed invention in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We
therefore remand the application for the Examiner and the Appellant to address on
the record whether claim 24 and its dependent claim 27 which recites “wherein
said washer is able to rotate relative to said body” meet the claim clarity
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 8, 9, 11-17 and 24-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Goiny, claims 8-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Bydalek, and claims 18-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Goiny in view of Bydalek, are reversed. The
application is remanded to the Examiner.
REVERSED and REMANDED
jlb
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013