Appeal No. 2000-2025
Application 08/953,878
provided any teaching, suggestion or incentive for one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the AAPA (i.e., Heth) in
the manner proposed by the examiner. The purpose of the
Harris device is to prevent a bolt from rotating when a nut is
tightened on it (page 1, lines 14 to 31), but since this is
not a problem when a bolt is screwed into a tapped hole, as
the bolts 39 of Heth evidently are, it is not apparent what
reason there would be for complicating the Heth apparatus by
incorporating the Harris device when it would not be needed in
the first place. The examiner cites Crigger as teaching
providing ribs directly on the bolt of Harris, but even if
this were done, it would still not have been obvious to modify
Heth in view of Harris.
Moreover, we agree with the appellant that even if the
prior art were combined as proposed by the examiner, the bolt
would be anchored against turning in the hole, but would not
also be anchored axially, as required by claim 1. The
examiner asserts that because the ribbed portions of Harris
and Crigger cause deformation, the ribbed element will be
axially anchored to some extent (answer, page 8), but this
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007