Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
Rejection of claims 52 and 79 as unpatentable over Schwartz
Claims 52 and 79 depend from independent claims 52 and 70, respectively,
and further recite that “each of the sleeve nuts includes a tubular segment and a
cup-shaped head; and each of the grommets have a curved surface at one end
complementary in shape to the cup-shaped head and an opposite face for engaging
an arm.” The Examiner found “Schwartz discloses the claimed invention except
for each of the sleeve nuts including a cup-shaped head and each of the grommets
having a curved surface at one end complementary in shape to the cup-shaped
head” (Answer 12). The Appellant argues that Schwartz fails to teach 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, Schwartz’s threaded nut
88 is not a sleeve nut as claimed (Findings of Fact 6-7). For this reason, we
cannot sustain this rejection of claims 52 and 79.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting: claim 90 as unpatentable over Borst; claims 1, 2, 15, 17, 23, 24, 26-28,
30, 33, 35, 36, 43-45, 47, 54-57, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 81, 83-86, and 92 as anticipated
by Schwartz; claims 16, 25, 34, 46, 71, and 77 as unpatentable over Schwartz and
Rivard; claims 23, 31, 33, 37-39, 41, 58, 61, and 62 as unpatentable over Rivard
and Schwartz; and claims 52 and 79 as unpatentable over Schwartz.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013