Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
“sleeve” implies that the sleeve nut includes a sleeve portion in addition to a head
or nut end portion, as described in Borst (Finding of Fact 3). The Examiner’s
interpretation of “sleeve nut” as being broad enough to include simply a nut is
unreasonable in view of the words “sleeve nut” used in the claims. Our
understanding of the scope of the recited “sleeve nut” is also consistent with the
Appellant’s own description of the tubular sleeve nut 41 in the Specification as
having a tubular segment 51 and a head 57 (Specification 4:12-19). As such, the
Schwartz threaded nut 88 is not a sleeve nut as claimed because it does not include
a sleeve portion (Findings of Fact 6-7). For this reason, we cannot sustain this
rejection of independent claims 1, 23, 33, 43, 70, 81, and 92, or their dependent
claims 2, 15, 17, 24, 26-28, 30, 35, 36, 44, 45, 47, 54-57, 72, 73, 75, 76, and 83-86.
Rejection of claims 81-83 and 87-89 as anticipated by Nickerson
Independent claim 81 recites “at least one sleeve nut threaded onto the stud
shaft.” As we found supra, a sleeve nut includes a sleeve portion and a head or nut
end portion. The Examiner found that Nickerson discloses at least one sleeve
nut 33 threaded onto the stud shaft 41 (Answer 7). We agree with the Examiner.
Nickerson discloses a link assembly that uses a hex nut 33 threaded on a
shaft 41 (Finding of Fact 7). Nickerson discloses that the hex nut 33 is a
conventional nut with an axially projecting inner flange 71 (Finding of Fact 8). As
such, Nickerson discloses a sleeve nut, as recited in claim 81, having a sleeve
portion 71 and a nut or head portion (Finding of Fact 9). Accordingly, the
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation,
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013