Appeal No. 2002-1704
Application No. 09/240,313
in view of Whittle, we again find ourselves in agreement with
appellant (brief, pages 16-17, and reply brief, pages 6-7) that
the examiner's rejection is the result of hindsight
reconstruction and is totally contrary to the teachings in Grimm
regarding providing wrenching splines on the fastener (Figs. 1-3)
and wrench (Fig. 4) therein having the particular symmetrical
configuration seen in Figures 5 and 6 of that patent. Since we
have determined that the teachings and suggestions that would
have been fairly derived from Grimm and Whittle would not have
made the subject matter as a whole of claims 14 through 18 and 22
on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellant's invention, we must refuse to sustain the
examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The last of the examiner's rejections for our consideration
is that of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Whittle, Dmitroff in view of Whittle, or Grimm
in view of Whittle, each as applied above, further in view of
Kesselman or Grünbichler. Claims 19 and 20 collectively define a
fastener which has an upper head with fastener tightening and
loosening surfaces thereon as provided for in claims 14 and 18,
and a lower head attached to the upper head by a neck and wherein
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007