Appeal No. 2001-0610 Page 8
Application No. 08/931,932
torqued that carries the cam, whereas in the invention recited in claim 3 the cam is part of
a fastener drive structure while the fastener is not.
For these reasons we will not sustain the Section 102 rejection of claim 1.
The same structure is required in independent claim 17, and we thus will not sustain
the like rejection of that claim.
Independent claim 16 is directed to a method of securing a fastener in place. In the
context of its steps, it recites the same structure as is present in claims 1 and 17, and
therefore the anticipation rejection fails for the same reasons. In addition, the final step of
claim 16 is to repeat the four preceding steps with a second fastener using the same
torque limited applicator. While the system disclosed by Ohlson might be capable of use
with a second nut member, such a method is not disclosed therein, and the reference fails
to anticipate the claim on this ground.
The Rejection Under Section 103
This rejection is applied to dependent claims 2 and 13, both of which depend from
claim 1 and therefore include all of the structure recited in claim 1. We have considered
3
Ohlson anew in the light of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, from our perspective, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Ohlson in such a fashion
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007