Appeal No. 2001-2595
Application 09/245,640
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is that
of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hennessey in view of Meyer and Swann. According to the examiner,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant’s invention to make the apertures or holes
in the vise plates of Hennessey as modified by Meyer to have both
an unthreaded portion and a threaded portion as shown in Swann
(Figs. 2 and 7) in order to permit Hennessey’s holes to be
selectively engaged by work holders having either threaded or
unthreaded posts. We agree.
Appellant’s argument relative to claim 23 (brief, page 9) is
that the holes seen in Swann are not “stepped” holes as described
by appellant. On page 8 of the answer, the examiner points to
Figure 7 of Swann and notes that this figure clearly shows a
stepped hole having an unthreaded portion (36) and a threaded
portion (34), wherein the hole is specifically designed to
receive two different types of pins. Since we agree with the
examiner’s evaluation of the teachings of Swann and with his
conclusion of obviousness, we will sustain the rejection of claim
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007