Appeal No. 2004-0299
Application No. 09/932,543
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a detailed exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the section
103 rejections of claims 1-8 but not the section 103 rejections
of claims 9-20.
The only claim 1 distinction which has been argued by the
appellant with any reasonable specificity concerns the recitation
“the set preventing sliding between the shank and sleeve when
tightened.” It is the examiner’s view that screw 30 of
patentee’s Figure 1 tool embodiment inherently would be capable
of engagement with the bottom of groove 32 to thereby prevent
sliding between shank 16 and sleeve or body 10 as recited in
1(...continued)
1-8 separately from claims 9-20. Consistent with this claim
grouping, the appellant has not contested the separate rejections
of claims 6 and 14 respectively. Indeed, the arguments in the
brief and reply brief are concerned with independent claims 1 and
9 only. It follows that, in assessing the merits of the
rejections before us, we will restrict our focus to only these
independent claims. See In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217
USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and compare In re McDaniel, 293
F.3d 1379, 1382-85, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1464-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007