Appeal No. 2003-1352
Application 09/282,865
or nut for applying torque thereto for tightening or loosening
the fastener and then removed from the head of the fastener after
completion of that operation.
By contrast, in Dmitroff, the ring (20) is by disclosure and
function an integral part of the nut itself and has a hexagonal
outer surface that is to be engaged by a wrench for tightening or
loosening the constant torque nut, with the driving ring (20)
remaining in place on the nut portion (12) after any such
tightening or loosening. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not view the driving or tightening ring (20) of Dmitroff’s
constant torque nut (10) as a “wrench.” For that reason, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 45 and 48
through 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Dmitroff.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 31
through 36, 38 and 41 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dmitroff in view of Grimm. In this
instance, we agree with appellant (brief, pages 12-15, and reply
brief, pages 4-5) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or
motivation for combining the constant torque nut of Dmitroff,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007