Appeal No. 2004-0299
Application No. 09/932,543
In this latter regard, we point out that, as illustrated in
Figure 1 of Tremblay, patentee’s screw 30 possesses no head or
any other structural feature which would prevent the screw from
spiraling down into the threaded aperture therefor. Thus, the
only structural feature of Tremblay’s Figure 1 tool which would
limit this downward movement would be engagement of the lower
section of screw 30 with the bottom (or longitudinal sides) of
groove 32. Such engagement would necessarily prevent sliding
between patentee’s shank 16 and sleeve or body 10 in accordance
with the claim 1 recitation under consideration.
Under the circumstances set forth above and in the answer,
it is our ultimate determination that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability for independent
claim 1 based on the Tremblay reference which the appellant has
failed to successfully rebut with argument and/or evidence of
patentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain, therefore, the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 as
being unpatentable over Tremblay. We also hereby sustain the
corresponding rejections of claim 6 based on Tremblay in view of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007