Appeal No. 2002-1704
Application No. 09/240,313
Appellant has again not argued claim 18 separately and, as a
result, we consider that for this rejection claim 18 will fall
with claim 17.
As for the rejection of claims 14, 17, 18 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dmitroff in view of
Whittle, we agree with appellant (brief, pages 12-14) that there
is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combining the
constant torque nut of Dmitroff, which seeks to limit tightening
torque to a preset maximum by using flexible teeth (26) on the
inner cylindrical wall of the driving ring (20), with the tamper-
evident bolt of Whittle. We consider that any such combination
as posited by the examiner would be the result of pure hindsight
reconstruction and require such substantial reconstruction and
redesign of the elements of the nut in Dmitroff as to destroy
that reference for its intended purpose. Thus, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 14, 17, 18 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dmitroff in
view of Whittle.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 14 through 18
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grimm
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007