Appeal No. 96-4084
Application 08/178,508
object for effecting a threaded union therebetween, as expressly
set forth in appellants’ specification. Thus, given the
recitation in the preamble
of claim 1 on appeal, it is clear that the process of appellants’
claim 1 must result in the production of “dual synchronized
threads” on the object which is subjected to that process. With
this understanding of the process of appellants’ claim 1 on
appeal, a review of Bosse makes it clear that this patent has no
relevance to a process “for producing dual synchronized threads
on an object,” as claimed by appellants.
Bosse addresses an entirely different type of process
for producing lobular, i.e., non-cylindrical configuration,
headless insert members like those seen in Figure 7 of the
reference. In contrast with the examiner’s position (answer,
page 5), we do not consider that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the successive external threads (13) of Bosse’s
threaded intermediate product, seen in Figure 5 thereof, to be
“dual synchronized threads” like those required to be formed in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007