Ex Parte Green - Page 7

              Appeal 2007-2875                                                                                         
              Application 10/447,732                                                                                   

         1          With respect to the rejection of the claims on obviousness grounds, we note                        
         2    the argument of the Appellant that it would not have been obvious to use the                             
         3    fastener of Grünbichler in the stump cutter of Manning.  We agree.  As noted                             
         4    above in our Findings of Fact, Grünbichler is directed to a tamper-proof or                              
         5    inherently non-removable bolt or screw.  It is unclear to us why a person of                             
         6    ordinary skill would use such a tamper-proof or non-removable fastener in the                            
         7    stump cutter disclosed in Manning.  The bolts 132, 134 are provided in Manning so                        
         8    that the cutters 42, 44 may be exchanged when they become dull or broken.  The                           
         9    use of a tamper-proof or non-removable bolt simply makes this procedure more                             
        10    cumbersome or inconvenient to the user.  For this reason, it is our view that one of                     
        11    ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to replace the conventional bolt of                       
        12    Manning with the tamper-proof, non-removable bolt or screw disclosed by                                  
        13    Grünbichler.  Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 5-9 and 16-20 under                        
        14    35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                                                         
        15                                                                                                             
        16                                        CONCLUSION                                                           
        17          The rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.                           
        18          The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by                             
        19    Grünbichler is affirmed.                                                                                 
        20          The rejection of claims 5-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable                        
        21    over Manning in view of Grünbichler is reversed.                                                         







                                                           7                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013