Appeal No. 96-4084
Application 08/178,508
appellants’ claimed process. Moreover, we share appellants’ view
that the examiner has engaged in speculation in reaching the
conclusion that each successive external thread formed in Bosse
begins at the same rotational zero point, since there is no such
disclosure in the Bosse patent. Thus, since it is clear that the
process involved in Bosse does not result in the formation of
“dual synchronized threads” and that Bosse does not teach or
suggest anything regarding the formation of “dual synchronized
threads,” we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, or of claims 2 and 3 which depend therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Bosse.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) relying on Cressey, we first note that claim 18
on appeal appears to be directed to the forming tool (10) seen in
Figure 1 of the application drawings. Claim 18 sets forth that
the forming tool therein is “for producing dual synchronized
threads on internal and external cylindrical surfaces of an
object.” We understand such “dual synchronized threads” to be as
discussed supra in the rejection of claims 1 through 3. By
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007