Appeal No. 2001-1608
Application 08/619,699
tool-engaging formations conforming to two different
measurement systems. The distinction is clear. Admittedly
the formations must be different sizes, but [it] is the
conformation to different measurement systems and not the
relative sizes that is critical” (page 2). Neither Toth nor
Anapliotis provides any teaching or suggestion of a fastener
having differently sized formations with one corresponding to
a standard metric wrench size and the other corresponding to a
standard English-system wrench size. The rationale advanced
by the examiner to overcome these deficiencies has no factual
basis, and amounts to an impermissible hindsight
reconstruction of the appellant’s invention. Neither Becker
nor Warner, alternatively applied in combination with Toth to
reject dependent claim 10, cures the shortcomings in the
examiner’s evidence.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claim 4 and dependent claims 6, 8 and
9 as being unpatentable over Toth, of claim 4 and dependent
claims 6, 7 and 9 as being unpatentable over Anapliotis, and
of dependent claim 10 as being unpatentable over Toth in view
of either Becker or Warner.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007