Appeal No. 1999-0939 Page 5
Application No. 08/593,334
a thread-like helical form to impress a helical groove into
the shank.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree. In our view,
the above-noted limitations of claim 13 are not suggested by
the applied prior art. In that regard, while Parsons does
teach piecering a member to form an aperture and cleavage and
then deforming the aperture and cleavage into a wall having a
thread-like helical form, it is our opinion that the applied
prior art would not have suggested replacing Bradley's second
member (i.e., workpiece 56) with Parsons' threaded member and
removing the threads from Bradley's fastener 10 so that
radially expanding Bradley's fastener 10 causes the wall
having a thread-like helical form of the second member to
impress a helical groove into Bradley's fastener 10.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Bradley in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure. The use of such hindsight
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007