Appeal No. 98-0197
Application 08/417,362
rejection is based on the combined teachings of the applied
references, and the order in which the references are recited
is of little moment. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131
USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961).
Turning to a consideration of claim 1 on appeal, we note
that the ultimate limitation of the claim calls for a
passageway extending through the washer portion and the plug
portion with the axis of the passageway perpendicular to the
nut-bearing surface. Since the nut-bearing surface and the
support-bearing surface diverge at an oblique angle, the
passageway and the cylindrical plug portion must be at a
complementary angle to the oblique angle of divergence.
Neither reference applied teaches a plug portion with a
passageway skewed with respect to the plug portion axis.
Therefore, assuming for a moment, that it would have been
obvious to provide the plug portion of Hipkins on the beveled
washer of Williams, no reference teaches that the stud
passageway in such a plug portion would be any more than
axial. It is noted that Hipkins does not clearly show that
his passageway is skewed even after the washer insert has been
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007