Appeal No. 2003-1352
Application 09/282,865
which seeks to limit tightening torque to a preset maximum by
using flexible teeth (26) on the inner cylindrical wall of the
driving ring (20), with the symmetrical spline wrenching
configurations of Grimm. We consider that any such combination
as posited by the examiner would be the result of hindsight
reconstruction and require such substantial reconfiguration and
redesign of the elements of the constant torque nut in Dmitroff
as to basically destroy that reference for its intended purpose.
Moreover, we note that the addition of the teachings of Grimm to
those in Dmitroff would do nothing to account for the deficiency
in Dmitroff we have pointed out above in our treatment of the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Thus, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
dependent 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.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 37 and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dmitroff, Grimm and
Stolarczyk, and the rejection of claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dmitroff and Stolarczyk, we
again find ourselves in agreement with appellant (brief, pages
15-18, and reply brief, pages 5-6) that the examiner’s rejections
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007