Appeal No. 2001-0308 Page 8
Application No. 09/188,701
Neither Wilner nor Wingert discloses a "Robertson driver" as
required by the claims. The examiner asserts that, to the extent
that the tip of either Wilner (Figures 5-7) or Wingert (Figure
12) is not square, it would have been obvious to make the tip
square to correspond with the configuration of a particular screw
(answer, page 4). In the alternative, the examiner contends that
it would have been obvious to provide a slotted tip on a
Robertson driver in order to provide a tool that can drive screws
and manipulate wire (answer, page 4).
It is well established that the mere fact that the prior art
could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious
unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. See In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16 USPQ2d
1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this instance, we fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied
references which would have motivated an artisan to modify the
tip of either Wilner or Wingert to provide a square cross section
or to provide a slot in a “Robertson” driver tip. Neither
reference discloses a screw head having a square or "Robertson"
hole or suggests the desirability of providing a "Robertson
driver" with a slot as claimed. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for modifying the references in the manner proposed by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007