Appeal No. 96-1416
Application 08/118,066
The examiner has also rejected claims 1 through 4, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the Australian patent to Vickers in view of the British patent
to Cuss. According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have provided the mechanism of Vickers with the bracket “b” of Cuss to
achieve the advantage of securing the insert in combination with a base member. The
examiner has also rejected claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the Australian patent to Vickers in view of the British patent to Cuss
and further in view of the British patent to Dzus. According to the examiner, it would
have been obvious to substitute 16 and 18 of Dzus for the mounting means 13 of
Vickers, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would have
been desirable to accommodate improperly aligned thread engagements.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), the appellant has grouped claims 1 through 5
and 9 through 11 together for purposes of the prior art rejection and has grouped
claims 1 through 5 and 9 together with respect to the indefiniteness rejection. See Brief
at page 5. Accordingly, we confine our analysis to claim 1 with respect to both
rejections.
Opinion
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007