Appeal No. 2003-0458
Application No. 09/894,738
the distance dss and the diameter of the set screw being
such that the set screw engages a rod of an eyebolt or hook
placed in the slot with a positive, non-yielding clamping force.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Onofrio 4,724,731 Feb. 16, 1988
Womack 5,058,465 Oct. 22, 1991
Grubbs 5,791,208 Aug. 11, 1998
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grubbs in view of Womack, and
claim 9 is correspondingly rejected over these references and
further in view of Onofrio.1
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and by the examiner concerning these rejections, we
refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain either of
the rejections before us on this appeal.
1 On page 7 of the brief, the appellant states that
“[c]laims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are to be considered a single group
of claims.” Consistent with this statement, all of the arguments
presented in the brief are directed to claim 1 only which is the
sole independent claim on appeal. It follows that, in assessing
the merits of the above noted rejections, we will focus on
independent claim 1. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983); compare In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1382-85, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1464-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007