Appeal No. 2002-2033 Page 8
Application No. 08/894,063
It is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Stolarczyk and Spagnoli fail to
establish a prima face case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
claim 34. We therefore will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 34 or of
dependent claims 36 and 38-41.
Independent claim 47 is directed to a tool comprising the torque transfer
components recited in claim 34, including the limitations contained therein. It also
stands rejected as being unpatentable over Stolarczyk and Spagnoli. We will not
sustain the rejection of claim 47 and claim 51, which depends from claim 47, for the
reasons expressed above with regard to claim 34.
Claims 48-50, 52 and 57-61 have been rejected on the basis of Stolarczyk and
Spagnoli, taken further in view of Goss, which was cited for teaching the limitations
regarding the profiles recited in these claims. Be that as it may, Goss does not
overcome the deficiencies in the combination of Stolarczyk and Spagnoli. Claims 48-50
and 52 depend from claim 47, and the rejection of these claims similarly will not be
sustained. Independent claim 57 contains the same limitations as claims 34 and 47,
and we also will not sustain its rejection for the reasons expressed above with regard to
those claims. The rejection of dependent claims 58 and 59 falls with that of claim 57,
from which they depend. The rejection of independent claim 60 and dependent claim
61 is not sustained for the same reasons as claim 34.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007