Appeal 2007-0676
Application 09/803,221
claim 1, including a “collar” disposed about the shank of the screw; however, it
fails to disclose that the collar is “formed on” the shank of the screw.
The Specification does not define the term “collar” or what is meant by the
phrase “formed on” as recited in claim 1. We give claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. A common definition of “collar” is “a ring or round flange
upon, around, or against an object chiefly to restrain motion within given limits, to
hold something in place, or to cover an opening (as on a shaft to prevent endwise
motion or around a pipe where it enters a wall)” Webster’s Third International
Dictionary (unabridged) 444 (definition 2.d), G. & C. Merriam Co. (1971). As we
found supra, Ernest’s locking element 56 is of a ring shape, it is advanced over the
threaded end 36 of the screw 14, and the screw is held captive on the retainer 18
between the head 38 of the screw and the locking element 56. Further, Ernest’s
locking element 56 is formed around the neck 44 of the screw 14 from a strip 70 of
plastic material having a hole through which the threaded end 36 of the screw is
pressed. As the end of the screw is pressed through the hole, the strip and hole
expand until the threaded end passes completely through the hole, at which point
the resilient plastic material snaps back behind the threaded screw part 36, i.e., the
hole tends to return to its initial size. The plastic ring 56 is then formed around the
screw by shearing it from the strip 70. As such, Ernest’s locking element 56 is a
collar formed around the shank proximate the threaded portion.
The only difference between Ernest’s collar and the collar described in
Appellant’s Specification is that Ernest’s collar is not fixed relative to the shank.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013