Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
Rejection of claims 43, 48-51, 54-58, 65, and 66 as unpatentable over Nickerson
and Schwartz
Independent claims 43 and 58 both include the limitation of “first and
second sleeve nuts threaded onto the stud shaft.” The Examiner relied on
Nickerson for the disclosure of the invention of claims 43 and 58, except for the
claimed second sleeve nut threaded onto the stud shaft and a grommet seated on
the second sleeve nut (Answer 9). The Examiner found that “it is known in the art
to provide a stud shaft 64 having a threaded section 66, first and second sleeve nuts
88, 90 threaded onto the stud shaft, [and] a grommet 72 seated on each of the
sleeve nuts” (Id.). The Examiner held that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
link assembly of Nickerson according to the teachings of Schwartz so that the stud
shaft 41 has a threaded section at each end, a second sleeve nut 33 is threaded onto
the second end, and the grommet 27 is seated on the second sleeve nut, in order to
facilitate assembly (Answer 9-10).
The Appellant argues that neither Nickerson nor Schwartz teaches a sleeve
nut and the Examiner’s interpretation of “sleeve nut” is overly broad because it
ignores the word “sleeve” entirely (Appeal Br. 13).
As we found supra, Nickerson discloses a sleeve nut threaded onto the
threaded end of the stud shaft (Finding of Fact 9). Thus, the Appellant’s argument
has failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 43 and 58. The Appellant has not
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013