Appeal No. 98-2419
Application No. 08/675,193
Considering first the rejection of claim 7, the only
independent claim on appeal, the examiner states the basis of
the rejection on page 2 of the final rejection (Paper No. 5)
as follows:
Hough discloses all of the claimed subject
matter except for having plural angular teeth on
the blade means [15]. Wickbergh discloses
plural angular teeth[5] on the blade means on
the tip and sides of a tapered head [Figs. 3, 4
and 5]. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to form the
blade/gripping means of Hough with plural
angular teeth to better grip the workpiece as
taught by Wickbergh. It would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to form
the head of Hough as tapered to better grip the
workpiece as taught by Wickbergh. It would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art to form the device of Hough with gripping
teeth/blade means on the tip of a driver member
as well as on the sides to better grip the
workpiece as taught by Wickbergh.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellants’ brief and the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that the rejection will not be sustained.
We agree with appellants that Wickbergh would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Hough
device be modified in the manner proposed by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007