Appeal No. 2003-0786
Application 09/059,712
such, in the examiner’s view, is not clear from the original
disclosure. However, we have disposed of that issue above and
based on that determination, and appellant’s arguments in the
brief (pages 14-15), have concluded that these claims set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of appellant's claims 25, 26, 43 and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejection of claims
24 through 29, 34, 35, 37, 42 through 44, 46, 52 and 54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grimm in view of
Dmitroff. According to the examiner, Grimm discloses “all of the
claimed subject matter except for the wrench and fastener being
asymmetrical” (answer, page 4), while Dmitroff discloses an
asymmetrical wrench and fastener. From such teachings, the
examiner has concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to form the wrench and fastener of
Grimm as asymmetrical to allow for limited tightening torque and
adequate torque in the loosening direction as taught by Dmitroff.
After reviewing the applied references, we find the examiner’s
position regarding the obviousness of the above enumerated claims
to be untenable.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007