Appeal 2007-1463 Page 19
Application 10/083,492
contains no more than one single plate. Here Appellants provide no evidence that
one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “single plate” to mean that it is the
sole plate in the assembly.
Appellants also argue that the references do not show “means for retaining
the screws on the plate” (claim 1) and “means for retaining the screws on the plate
and for connecting the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports
apparatus” (claims 6, 38, and 41). However, a close inspection of Keller (see Fig.
3; see also footnote 7 of this Decision) shows that the holes (element 13) in the
plate receive screws (col. 4, l. 56) which retain and connect the plate (element 12)
to the disk (element 1) when the base (element 9) is not affixed to the sports
apparatus.
E. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
Claims 23 and 28
Because Appellants argue claims 23 and 28 as a group, pursuant to the
rules, the Board selects representative claim 23 to decide the appeal with respect
to this rejection, and claim 28 will stand or fall with claim 23. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Claim 23 reads as follows:
Claim 23. A retaining assembly according to claim 7, wherein all of the at
least two screws are sized, relative to respective ones of the holes of the
plate, to be forcibly screwed through said respective ones of the holes of the
plate.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013