Appeal No. 2004-0106
Application 09/907,974
for alternatively engaging hexagonal fasteners (e.g., nuts,
bolts, etc.) of different size. In the examiner’s view,
if one skilled in the art needed to engage a workpiece
that is hexagonal in shape, the shape of that end of
the socket must also be hexagonal. Thus the suggestion
or motivation . . . is that one skilled in the art
would clearly be lead [sic] to make the single cavity
of Jarvis of a hexagonal shape if the workpiece were
also similarly shaped. It would not be desirable or
even feasible for a person using the Jarvis socket to
engage anything but a rectangularly shaped workpiece,
however with the suggestion provided by the Rexford and
Hsiao patents, this person skilled in the art would be
lead [sic] to make the proposed modification so that a
hexagonally shaped workpiece can be operated upon
[answer, page 5].
This proposed modification of Jarvis in view of either
Rexford or Hsiao is unsound. As disclosed, the Jarvis adapter
505 is an intermediate drive element designed to be connected at
either end to mating drive elements. Because the connections
between such drive elements are conventionally rectangular as
evidenced by Jarvis’ disclosure, so too are the cavities in the
ends of adapter 505. In contrast, the hexagonal cavities in the
socket members disclosed by Rexford and Hsiao are configured to
engage hexagonal fasteners rather than drive elements. They
correspond to the open-ended sockets described by Jarvis for
application to bolts and nuts. The only suggestion for modifying
the rectangular drive cavity in Jarvis’ adapter 505 in view of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007