Appeal No. 1998-0509
Application 08/236,771
and provides no motivation to modify the hole 42B.
Assuming, arguendo, that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dupree
with Remise, it seems to us that most logical correspondence
of parts is as follows: the tubular nut 38 in plate 13 in
Dupree corresponds to the threaded hole 42B in housing 4 in
Revise; the panel 12 in Dupree corresponds to the side
surfaces 11, 12 in Revise; the resilient captive washer 11
in Dupree corresponds to the grommet 41 in Remise; and the
screw 10 in Dupree corresponds to the screw in Remise.
Thus, Dupree only would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art, replacing the grommet 41 in Remise with a
captive washer in the side surfaces 11, 12 so that the screw
would be retained in the side surfaces 11, 12 when the
housing 4 is removed. The screw in Remise as modified would
still screw into threads integral with the housing and would
still cause distortion due to torque. The Examiner does not
address the correspondences of parts between Dupree and
Remise, and what they would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art, but just looks at the captive
washer 11 in the opening of Dupree in isolation. We do not
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007