Ex Parte Von Resch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2008

10247326 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JULIUS VON RESCH
____________

Appeal 2008-2276
Application 10/247,326
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: October 29, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellant requests rehearing of our Decision of April 8, 2008,
wherein we affirmed the Examiner's rejections of appealed claims 1-14, in
particular, the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8-12, and the § 103
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 13, and 14.
We have thoroughly reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Request.
As a result, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellant that the pintle of
Appeal 2008-2276
Application 10/247,326

Campbell, being one integral piece, does not correspond to the claimed
vertical adjusting screw having proximal and distal ends and an eccentric pin
having offset cylindrical upper and lower sections with respective upper and
lower ends, wherein the upper end of the eccentric pin contacts the distal end
of the vertical adjusting screw. We agree with Appellant that the claim
requirement for an adjusting screw having proximal and distal ends and an
eccentric pin having upper and lower ends, with the upper end of the pin
contacting the distal end of the vertical adjusting screw, is not met by the
one-piece pintle of Campbell. Likewise, the pintle of Campbell does not
meet the claim 7 requirement of a vertical set screw having an abutment end
that is extendable into the cavity for stopping movement of the end of the
eccentric pin. Also, the claimed method recited in claim 9 for moving an
end of the eccentric pin with an end of the vertical screw is not taught or
suggested by Campbell. However, we note again that independent claims 4
and 8 do not recite a vertical adjusting screw.
Accordingly, we will modify our decision and reverse the Examiner's
§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10, as well as the Examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7. For the reasons of record, however, we will
make no change in our decision to sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of
claims 4, 8, 11, and 12 as well as the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 5,
6, 13, and 14.
In conclusion, Appellant's Request is granted to the extent we have
modified our decision and reversed the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims
1, 9, and 10 and the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7.
Consequently, the Examiner's decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed-in-part.
2
Appeal 2008-2276
Application 10/247,326

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
the appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam

JAMES C. WRAY
SUITE 300
1493 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD
MCLEAN, VA 22101

3