Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
Rejection (2)
Considering this rejection as to claim 1, the appellant
does not contend that the combination of Main '025 or '940 and
Flynn would not have been obvious, but rather contends that the
combination would not meet all the limitations of claim 1. The
issue comes down to whether Main '025 discloses the following 2
claimed limitations (emphasis added):
(a) an annular driver member . . . having
. . . a plurality of end teeth disposed
circumferentially about and extending from an
annular flat surface of said annular driver
member parallel to an axis of rotation of
said annular driver member; [and]
(b) a pawl element having . . . a pair of
nibs, . . . said nibs projecting from a flat
surface of said pawl element and extending
parallel to a pivotal axis of said pawl
element.
Appellant first argues that the “flat surface” limita-
tions of parts (a) and (b) are not met because Main '025
discloses concave, not flat, surfaces on annular driver 18 and
2Since the relevant portions of the ratchet wrench
disclosed in Main '940 are essentially the same as in Main '025,
we will confine our discussion to the latter reference.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007