Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
provide firm hook-like key retention and require significantly
higher forces and or deformation of the slot to remove the
key.” Like appellant, we are of the opinion that the ribs
(34e) of Thomas would exhibit equal forces for insertion and
removal of the key member (32) into and out of the holder (34)
and accordingly the ribs (34e) are not resilient directional
retention structures as required by claim 57 on appeal.
Since McRae and Thomas relied upon by the examiner do not
disclose a “directional retention structure,” it follows that
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 57 and dependent claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In regards to the examiner's rejections of claims 60-62
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over McRae in view
of Thomas, Schmalz and Linsalato. We agree with the examiner
that McRae and Thomas fail to disclose a series of
discontinuities provided on the engagement surface as in
claims 60-61 and a truncation in the spheroidal body as in
claim 62. We also agree that the above features are clearly
taught in the secondary references (Schmalz and Linsalato).
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007