Appeal 2007-3920
Application 90/007,025
lateral ends 32 of the said first and second lateral ends 32 of the
plate and with the first ends 32, each of said plate; and
and second lips 24, 26 lips including a first retaining means
respectively projecting portion substantially extending from the
into said first and perpendicular to said plate and having first
second openings. flat base and a second and second lips 24, 26
portion substantially respectively projecting
parallel to said flat baseinto the first and second
opposite said front openings for holding
surface, the opposed the gripping member 12
retaining lips 24, 26 immobilized against the
each being wrapped plate.
around one of the
ends 44, 46 of said
hollow, tubular gripping
member 12 and
projecting inside said
gripping member for
retaining it on said flat
base portion.
All of the structures in claim 3 appear in each claim 1 of the prior
patents, with the same functional and structural relationships. The
difference between claim 3 and the other claims is that claim 3 is directed to
a substructure within the structures of the other two claims. In this sense,
claim 3 is broader (i.e., less limited) than the earlier claims. The claims of
the 063 and 846 patents anticipate the gripper of claim 3.
Rexnord argues that the rejection is improper because one could make
and use the gripper separately from the combinations including the gripper
that are claimed in the 063 and 846 patents. According to Rexnord, no one
is thus excluded from using the inventions claimed in those earlier patents.13
13 Br. 6.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013