Appeal No. 2002-1704
Application No. 09/240,313
tightening of the upper head to a predetermined torque by the
wrench causes the upper head and the neck to sever from the lower
head. As is apparent from appellant's grouping of the claims on
page 5 of the brief, claims 19 and 20 have not been argued
separately from independent claim 14 from which they ultimately
depend. Accordingly, with regard to the combination as it
relates to Whittle in view of Kesselman or Grünbichler, we
conclude that claims 19 and 20 will fall with claims 14 and 18.
As for the other combinations set forth by the examiner in
this § 103 rejection, we find nothing in either Kesselman or
Grünbichler which in any way makes up for the deficiencies we
pointed out above regarding the examiner's proposed basic
combinations of Dmitroff and Whittle, or Grimm and Whittle.
Accordingly, these rejections of claims 19 and 20 will not be
sustained.
In summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
14, 18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Whittle is affirmed, as are the rejections of claims 17 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Whittle, and
claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
1212
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007