Appeal No. 2003-1352
Application 09/282,865
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 26, 45 and 48 through 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Dmitroff, the examiner has taken
the position (answer, page 3) that Dmitroff discloses a nut (12)
engaged by a drive ring or wrench (20). The examiner urges that
the drive ring (20) “functions as a wrench since a wrench is
defined as a tool with jaws for turning an object such as a nut.”
The examiner further notes that the drive ring of Dmitroff is
capable of being turned by an additional wrench or by hand.
Our review of Dmitroff reveals that this patent is directed
to a “constant torque nut” wherein the torque control is present
in the nut itself and the nut may be tightened by an ordinary
wrench to a preset maximum amount which cannot be exceeded. More
particularly, Dmitroff discloses a constant torque nut (10)
including an inner shell or nut portion (12) and a driving or
tightening ring (20) mounted on nut portion (12) and held in
place thereon by a split lock-ring or lock-washer (30). The nut
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007