Appeal 2007-1793
Application 10/911,196
Hubweber’s locking arrangement elements include collar 12 (Finding of Fact 2),
which is axially fixed with respect to the cylinder 1 (Finding of Fact 7). As such,
Hubweber’s locking arrangement is at least partially secured, via collar 12, to the
housing (cylinder 1) (Finding of Fact 8). Thus, Hubweber anticipates claim 43.
The Appellants appear to argue that claim 43 limits the locking arrangement
to two elements, namely a one piece upper section and a lower section (Reply
Br. 2). We disagree with the Appellants’ narrow reading of claim 43. Claim 43 is
written using the open-ended transitional phrases of “A method … comprising”
and “said locking arrangement including ….” Hubweber’s locking arrangement
includes a locking sleeve (the one-piece collet 7 and wall 4) having an upper
section (wall 4) and a lower section (collet 7) as claimed, and further contains parts
in addition to the locking sleeve, viz, collar 12 and spring 9 (Finding of Fact 9).
These additional parts in Hubweber’s locking arrangement do not, however,
distinguish Hubweber’s method from the claimed method. The Appellants did not
provide any separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 53 and 55.
As such, these dependent claims fall with claim 43. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
The Appellants argue that dependent claim 57, which calls for “at least one
spring extending between said guide member and the bottom end of said housing,”
is separately patentable, because Hubweber discloses the use of only a single
spring 9 positioned between the piston 3 and the top of cylinder 1 (Appeal Br. 6).
The Examiner responds that Hubweber discloses a spring in the form of a gas
spring provided by pressurized gas above and below the guide member (piston 3)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013