Appeal No. 2000-2025
Application 08/953,878
assertion seems speculative at best, considering that in
neither reference are the ribs provided in order to axially
anchor the bolt (or screw in Crigger’s case).
We therefore will not sustain rejection (1) as to claim
1, nor, it follows, as to dependent claims 2, 3 and 5.
Rejection (2)
This rejection will not be sustained for essentially the
same reasons as rejection (1). The examiner takes official
notice of the use of a nut and ribbed neck bolt to secure
structural members together, citing the definition of “bolt”
in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(3d Ed., 1992), and contends that it would have been obvious
to use such a bolt and nut to attach the flutes of the AAPA
(Heth) to the core, “to thus provide a better anchor of the
bolt into the core body” (answer, page 6). However, there is
no teaching to suggest that a ribbed bolt and nut would anchor
the flutes of Heth to the core better than bolts 39, and we do
not consider that one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to substitute one for the other. Also, as with
rejection (1), the ribbed bolt would not be axially anchored
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007