Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
Appellant further argues that his structure is simpli-
fied over that of Main, because he employs only a pair of nibs
rather than Main’s numerous gear teeth. However, the claims do
not exclude the presence of other gear teeth (“nibs”) in addition
to the pair of nibs recited.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and likewise the rejection of claims 2, 5,
9, 10, 12, 13 and 20 to 23, which, appellant states on page 9 of
the brief, fall with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 24 each include the limitation that the
peripheral length of each peripheral tooth on the driver member
is equal to the length of the shoulders on the pawl element.
These lengths are identified in the specification as “h ” and
a
“h ,” respectively, and it is disclosed that making these dimen-
s
sions equal increases the mechanical strength of the wrench (page
22, lines 4 to 12).
The examiner asserts that this feature is suggested by
Flynn, but does not identify, and we do not find, any written
disclosure thereof in the reference. Presumably the examiner is
referring to Flynn’s drawings, which show in Figs. 1 and 5 a
driver member 25 or 125 whose peripheral teeth 26 or 126 are of
the same thickness (length) as those of pawl 27 or 127. However,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007