Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
we do not consider that this showing, without more, would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the driver
member and/or pawl element of Main '025 or '940 be modified to
make their teeth of equal peripheral length. This is not merely
a matter of design choice, but solves appellant’s stated problem
of increasing the strength of the wrench. Cf. In re Kuhle, 526
F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
We will therefore not sustain the rejection of claims 3
and 24, nor the rejection of claims 25 and 28 to 43, dependent on
claim 24.4
Claims 11 (and 33) recite that
said second end portion of said drive shaft
includes a disk element disposed between said
first and second gears and wherein said pawl
element includes a pair of locating pins
spaced apart from one another and extending
parallel to said pair of nibs, said locating
pins operative to contact said disk element
to restrict linear movement of said drive
shaft when said first end portion of said
drive shaft is moved from the first linear
position to the second linear position.
Main '025 does not disclose any pins operative to contact the
disk element 58 on drive shaft 52, but the examiner contends
4Appellant states on page 9 of the brief that claim 33
“stand[s] alone,” but since it is dependent on claim 24, it
necessarily is patentable over the applied prior art if claim 24
is.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007