Appeal No. 2002-1704
Application No. 09/240,313
recognize that Whittle does not expressly describe any such use
of the teeth (2) for loosening the bolt, we are convinced that
the teeth (2) and wrench (7) as shown in Figure 4 would be viewed
by one of ordinary skill in the art as having such capability,
especially where the bolt is not initially tightened down
completely.
With particular regard to claim 22 on appeal, we see no
distinction between the wrench (7) of Whittle and that defined in
appellant's claim 22. Nor has appellant provided any argument
specifically directed to claim 22 as to why the wrench (7) of
Whittle fails to anticipate the wrench of claim 22. Again,
looking to Figure 4 of Whittle, it is our view that the wrench
(7) seen therein has both a plurality of tightening surfaces and
a plurality of loosening surfaces formed in the manner broadly
required in claim 22 on appeal and wherein the tightening
surfaces are capable of applying a force to tightening surfaces
of the fastener to tighten the fastener and the loosening
surfaces are capable of applying a force to loosening surfaces of
the fastener to loosen the fastener, especially where the
fastener is not completely tightened down when the decision is
made to apply a loosening force to the fastener, e.g., such as
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007