Appeal No. 2000-1492
Application No. 09/255,276
involving any clamping or torque transmitting function but
instead merely a supporting function for allowing rotation of
the end member and its associated core member. Given the
shortcoming of Bushell, and the teachings of Kewin that the
inner annular surface of the end member should be configured
to receive a variety of different types of chucks, the
examiner’s position with respect to modifying Kewin based on
the construction of conventional expandable chucks and/or the
teachings of Bushell is not well founded.
As to utilizing Bushell as the starting point of the
rejection, the examiner implicitly acknowledges that Bushell’s
end members do not have radially projecting lugs for
cooperating with lug receiving notches in the core member, as
called for in the appealed claims. The examiner contends,
however, that it would have been obvious to provide the end
members of Bushell with radially projecting lugs “to more
securely connect the end members to the core member in view of
the teachings of Kewin” (answer, page 3). Inasmuch as Kewin’s
radially projecting lugs are for the express purpose of
III New Riverside University Dictionary, Riverside Publishing
Company, copyright © 1984 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007