Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
Rejection (1)
In the final rejection, the examiner indicated that the
specification did not meet the enablement requirement of § 112,
first paragraph, with regard to the subject matter recited in the
claims, in that (final rejection, page 2)
[t]he specification and drawings show that
the annular member (20) is adapted to engage
a standard socket (12) which will in turn be
applied to a “first workpiece”, e.g. a
nut(14). The claims state that the annular
member (20), however is “operative to mate-
ably [sic] engage the first workpiece”
(claim 1) or a standard socket or the first
workpiece (claim 24). Thus the scope of the
claims is broader than the specification in
that the drive stub 110 cannot directly
engage the workpiece as is broadly claimed.
Also, there is no disclosed “resilient
urging” of the shaft as claimed in claims 21
and 41.
In response to appellant’s argument on pages 18 to 20 of the
brief that it would require no undue effort for one of ordinary
skill to construct the driver member integrally with the socket,
so that the driver member would directly engage the first work-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007