Appeal No. 97-0081
Application No. 08/226,532
proposed by the examiner results from a review of the appellants'
disclosure and the application of impermissible hindsight. Thus,
we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of independent claims
1, 8 and 12, or of claims 2 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 and 14
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that one having ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the
nuts of Robinson with their conical surfaces for the nuts in the
device of Zvanut, it is our opinion that the ensuing structure
would not necessarily result in engagement of the conical surface
of the nut with the edge of the second aperture for driving the
first and second legs together for applying clamping force to the
toolbar between the first and second legs as the mounting nuts
are tightened as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 12. The
appellants accomplish this driving of the first and second legs
together as the mounting nuts are tightened by (1) locating the
second leg off center in the second aperture away from the first
leg, (2) applying first and second mounting nuts to the threaded
portions of the first and second legs, and (3) providing a
conical surface on the second mounting nut to engage the edge of
the second aperture to pull the second leg towards the center of
the second aperture, thereby applying a clamping force between
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007