Appeal No. 2003-0786
Application 09/059,712
July 1, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 53, filed November 25,
2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting claims 24 through 35, 37, 42 through 44, 46,
48, 50, 52 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
examiner has taken the position (answer, pages 3-4) that
appellant’s reference to “a single fastener periphery” and “a
single wrench periphery” constitute new matter, since such was
not originally disclosed and the drawings fail to disclose a
complete view of the invention, because only an end view of the
invention is shown. In addition, the examiner contends that the
originally filed specification fails to provide support for “can
generate a greater torque to failure...” as set forth in line 2
of claim 24.
After a complete review of the application disclosure as
originally filed, we agree with appellant that one skilled in the
art would have readily discerned from the showings in Figures 4-8
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007