Appeal No. 2003-1828
Application No. 09/592,080
corresponding minor diameter of the threaded portion of the
fastener.
As regards claims 3 and 14, we agree with the examiner that
“self-tapping” threads are patentably indistinguishable from the
fastener threads of Kuzdak since, in essence, “self-tapping” is
not a structural limitation since it depends upon the composition
of the engaged materials.
However, the same cannot be said for the more specific
limitations set forth in claims 4 and 15 which require a
particular juxtaposition of the self-tapping threads and
retaining material within the aperture of the base member, such
that the self-tapping threads cut through the retaining material
when moved from a shipping position to an installed position.
For this reason, we find the limitations of claims 4 and 15 to be
patentably distinguishable from Kuzdak. Accordingly, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 15, as well as dependent
claims 5 and 6, is reversed.
Additionally, as to the rejection of claims 8 and 16, we
find that the examiner’s reliance upon Metcalf is misplaced.
While Metcalf may show a pocket (8) adjacent a retaining portion
of an aperture in which a fastener is retained, in our opinion
the examiner has failed to establish the requisite motivation for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007