Appeal No. 1999-1534 Page 8
Application No. 08/799,210
(1) provided a self-threading insert at the head portion of
Hillis' spoke nipple as suggested by Horling's insert 25 and
Sauer's collar 16 to prevent a spoke from loosening, and (2)
made the self-threading insert from nylon for the reasons
suggested by Sauer's nylon collar 16.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 4-7) that there is no
suggestion or teaching in either Hillis or Horling which would
have led one skilled in the art "to provide a combination of a
spoke nipple having threads in the metallic body and an insert
into which a threaded spoke may be screwed." This argument is
based upon the facts that (1) there is no teaching or
suggestion in Hillis "of an insert of non-metallic material,"
and (2) "the axial hole [i.e., bore 17] extending through the
spoke nipple [of Horling] is not provided with any threads."
The fallacy with the appellant's argument is that it does
not consider the teachings of Sauer. The rejection of claim 1
is based upon the combined teachings of Hillis, Horling and
Sauer and not just the teachings of Hillis and Horling as
argued by the appellant. As noted previously, it is our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007