Appeal No. 2002-1035 Page 6
Application No. 09/333,166
Rosenburg’s Figure 1 would have suggested forming the depth of the flutes2 of the
knurling 16 of Rosenburg’s tip member 12 as a substantial portion of the radius of the
anchor portion of the tip member “to provide a more firm connection as inherently
taught by figure 1 of Rosenburg” (answer, page 4). Likewise, the examiner’s
determination of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 13 depends in part upon a
determination that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
form the device of Kruesi with angularly spaced flutes to mount the tip to the shank in
an embedded manner as taught by Rosenburg in Figure 1 (answer, page 6) and further
to form the radial depth of the flutes “as a substantial portion of the radius of the anchor
portion to provide a more firm connection as inherently taught by Rosenburg” (answer,
page 7). Even assuming that the spacings between what appear to be radially
outwardly extending protrusions near the handle end of the blade 11 of Rosenburg’s
screw driver as illustrated in Figure 1 form flutes having a maximum radial depth which
is a substantial portion of the radius of the blade, with the flutes being substantially filled
with material of the handle, we find no suggestion therein to provide such deep flutes
on either the tip member 12 of Rosenburg or the tip 14 of Kruesi.
Rosenburg discloses provision of knurling 16 or suitable roughening (column 2,
lines 23-24) on the tip member 12 so that it will bite into the shank of the blade 11 as it
is driven into the bore of the shank (column 1, lines 67-70). The illustration in
Rosenburg’s Figure 1 of what appear to be radial protrusions on the blade 11 as
2 The examiner does take the position, on page 8 of the answer, that the knurling 16 on the tip
member 12 of Rosenburg forms “shallow flutes” and appellants do not appear to dispute this position.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007