Appeal No. 1999-2370 Page 7
Application No. 08/890,744
diameter greater than the diameter of the threaded
section (542); and
wherein the head (541) defines a multiple-sided
tool-engaging hole (59) which extends axially into the
threaded section (542).
We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claim 25. The
examiner found (final rejection, p. 2) that
Sedgwick discloses a bolt comprising a head (20) and a
threaded section (27) with a flange (26) therebetween.
The bolt includes a tool-engaging hole extending through
both the head and threaded sections. Sedgwick discloses
a head and the threaded section being the same diameter.
The examiner then determined that
it would have been obvious matter of design choice for
one of ordinary skill in the art to change the relative
sizes of the bolt including wherein the threaded section
is greater than the head because the relative sizes are
not critical. Furthermore, a larger threaded portion
would strengthen the threaded connection.
We agree with the argument of the appellant that there is
no evidence in the applied prior art (i.e., Sedgwick) that
would have suggested modifying the diameter of Sedgwick's
threaded section (27) to have a diameter greater than the
diameter of the head (20). Evidence of a suggestion,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007