Appeal No. 96-4084
Application 08/178,508
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have determined that the examiner’s respective
rejections of claims 1 through 3 and 18 cannot be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 3, we note that claim 1 on appeal is directed to a method
or process for producing dual synchronized threads on an object.
As is clear from the above quoted portion of appellants’
specification, the terminology “dual synchronized threads” has a
specific meaning within the context of appellants’ invention and
in the art, and requires that each set of dual synchronized
threads be in the relationship described in appellants’
specification and be capable of engaging corresponding
synchronized external and internal mating threads on a mating
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007