Appeal 2007-0676
Application 09/803,221
the time the invention was made to have a collar formed as part of the shank of
Ernest because it would facilitate assembly of the screw in the ferrule. In
particular, to assemble the screw in the ferrule, the screw collar would simply have
to be press fit through the reduced diameter portion of the ferrule (Answer 4).
Further, Damm’s teaching that an advantage of its design is to provide a
connecting element which is comprised of as few parts as possible, (Damm, col. 3,
ll. 13-15), would have provided an incentive to one skilled in the art to modify the
captive screw of Ernest to eliminate the locking element 56, and the assembly
associated therewith, for the ease of assembly of the screw as taught in Damm.
Appellant argues that “there would be no motivation for the collar in Damm
without the compression gasket and if the collar were located anywhere along the
shaft [of] Ernest it would destroy the intended operation of Ernest” (Appeal Br. 7).
First, the Examiner provided a reason to use Damm’s collar on Ernest’s device that
does not require the use of the compression gasket of Damm, i.e., to minimize the
number of parts and for ease of assembly. As such, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s first argument. As for Appellant’s argument that Damm’s collar
would destroy the intended operation of Ernest, Appellant contends that if the
modified collar were to act as a standoff, it would prevent Ernest’s captive screw
from being fully tightened to fasten the two parts together, and the two parts could
be forced apart against the bias of Ernst’s spring (Reply Br. 4). We fail to see how
this is the case. If the swelling of Damm were added to the shank of Ernest,
according to the teaching of Damm, it could be added anywhere along the middle
portion of the shank. As long as this swelling or collar were added above the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013