Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
presented any further arguments for separate patentability of dependent claims
48-51, 54-57, 65, and 66. As such, these dependent claims fall with independent
claims 43 and 58. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Rejection of claims 23, 31, 33, 37-39, 41, 58, 61, and 62 as unpatentable over
Rivard and Schwartz
Independent claims 23, 31, and 58 each includes the limitation of first and
second sleeve nuts threaded onto the stud shaft. The Examiner relied on Rivard for
the disclosure of the invention of claims 23, 31, and 58, except for the claimed
second sleeve nut threaded onto the stud shaft (Answer 10). The Examiner found
that Schwartz discloses that it is known in the art to provide a stud shaft 64 having
a threaded section 66 at each end, first and second sleeve nuts 88, 90 threaded onto
each threaded section 66, and a grommet seated on each of the sleeve nuts (Id.).
The Appellant argues that neither Schwartz nor Rivard teaches a sleeve nut and the
Examiner’s interpretation of “sleeve nut” is overly broad because it ignores the
word “sleeve” entirely (Appeal Br. 13). We agree with the Appellant.
As we found supra, a sleeve nut includes a sleeve portion and a head or nut
end portion. Both Schwartz and Rivard disclose a conventional hex nut (Findings
of Fact 6, 11). A conventional hex nut is not the same as the claimed sleeve nut
because it does not include a sleeve portion (Findings of Fact 7, 12). Thus, the
combination of Schwartz and Rivard fails to disclose using a sleeve nut on a
threaded end section of the stud shaft. As such, we cannot sustain this rejection of
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013