Appeal 2007-2875
Application 10/447,732
1 ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed
2 invention does. This is so because inventions in most, if not, all cases rely upon
3 building blocks long since uncovered. Id.
4
5 ANALYSIS
6 Turning first to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, for lack of written
7 description support, we agree that one of ordinary skill would clearly conclude
8 from Appellant’s Specification that Appellant was in possession of the subject
9 matter of a fastener with a head that was not intended to be removed from the
10 shank. That circumstances exist in which the head is removed due to unintended
11 consequences of use does not show that Appellant lacks written descriptive support
12 for a permanent fastener head. The rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-20 under § 112,
13 first paragraph, is reversed.
14 Turning to the anticipation rejection of claims 1-4, we quoted the language
15 from the Grünbichler patent which states that Grünbichler has a permanent
16 clamping head 2 with a torque head 3 being “formed” thereon. It is noted that
17 Appellant’s claims refer to a permanent head portion having a “configuration”
18 suitable for receiving a drive tool. Appellant’s Specification does not define the
19 term “configuration.” Accordingly, we give this term its broadest reasonable
20 interpretation. As such, in our view “configuration” is extremely broad in that it
21 refers to something that has been configured, shaped, or formed. We believe that
22 the torque head shown by Grünbichler has been configured or formed and can be
23 considered a “configuration”, since Grünbichler states the permanent head portion
24 has a torque head suitable for receiving a driving tool “formed” thereon.
25 Consequently, we find that Grünbichler anticipates claims 1-4.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013