Appeal No. 2003-0786
Application 09/059,712
In the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of Dmitroff, it
is noted that when it is desired to remove the constant torque
nut from the stud (S), the hexagonal outer portion of the ring
(20) may be turned by a wrench in the opposite direction. As can
be seen in Figures 2 and 6, when the rotation is in this
direction
the sharply inclined or abrupt faces of the ratchet
teeth oppose each other and thus substantially
precludes the possibility of slippage of the ratchet
teeth in this opposite direction. As a result, a much
greater turning force may be applied during loosening
of the constant torque nut than could be applied during
the tightening thereof, due to the unidirectional
features of the driving engagement between the ring
member 20 and the nut portion 12.
In contrast to the examiner’s findings, we do not see that
Dmitroff discloses “an asymmetrical wrench and fastener”
(emphasis added). Like appellant, it is our determination that
the outer driving ring (20) of the constant torque nut (10) of
Dmitroff is not -- according to its structure, function and
Dmitroff’s express statements -- a “wrench.” In our view, a
“wrench” is a tool for gripping and turning the head of a bolt,
nut, or the like, and conventionally consists of a bar or handle
of metal having fixed or adjustable jaws configured to engage the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007