Appeal No. 2003-1828
Application No. 09/592,080
one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pocket of Metcalf in
Kuzdak, especially in view of the fact that the retaining portion
of the aperture in Metcalf (oblong opening 3) is fundamentally
different in structure from that shown in Kuzdak (internally
threaded passage 26). Accordingly, we also reverse the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16.
In closing, we note that appellants have included some web
pages with their reply brief for the purpose of demonstrating
that self-tapping threads are unique. It is inappropriate to
introduce new evidence by way of a reply brief without a showing
of good and sufficient reasons why the evidence was not earlier
presented. In this regard, see 37 CFR § 1.195. Accordingly, we
have not considered the web pages in question. However, even if
we were to consider those web pages, appellants have failed to
indicate how those pages demonstrate that self-tapping threads
are structurally “unique.”
We also note that there is no antecedent basis for “said
self-tapping threads” in claim 15. Apparently, claim 15 may have
been intended to depend from claim 14 rather than claim 10.
Accordingly, an appropriate amendment of claim 15 should be made
to correct the noted defect.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007