Appeal No. 2003-1352
Application 09/282,865
rotation will increase sharply until it reaches a point
at which it is equal to the driving force transmitted
between the engaged ratchet teeth. The nut then will
be securely threaded to the stud with the required
torque and the inclined ratchet teeth will begin to
slip to prevent any increase in applied torque.
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.
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 head of
a bolt or nut. A wrench is placed on or over the head of a bolt
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007