Appeal No. 2003-0265 Page 9
Application No. 09/105,150
teachings of that reference. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In our opinion the examiner has not presented evidence that would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal.
We agree with the examiner that Crowther does teach distorting the last thread at the
free extremity of screw 16 by peening the end of the screw (i.e., the end of screw 16
which is circular and substantially planar and is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the
screw). However, Crowther does not teach or suggest forming a stake in the second
end of the screw which extends along a chord or along a line extending across the
second end (i.e., a chord) as recited in all the claims under appeal. To supply this
omission in the teachings of Crowther, the examiner made a determination (final
rejection, pp. 2-4) that these differences would have been obvious to an artisan.
However, this determination has not been supported by any evidence that would have
led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Crowther in the manner proposed
by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight knowledge
derived from the appellants' own disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007