Appeal No. 2004-0299
Application No. 09/932,543
Prichard and of claim 4 based on Tremblay in view of Raber2 since
these rejections have not been contested by the appellant in the
brief or reply brief.
We reach a different determination concerning the examiner’s
rejection of appealed independent claim 9. According to the
examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art to form the device of Tremblay such that the
snap hole and bore may be . . . rotationally offset to facilitate
adjustment or removal of the sleeve as taught by Raber [i.e., to
thereby obtain the end versus out of rotational alignment feature
recited in claim 9]” (answer, page 6). The examiner’s
obviousness conclusion is not well taken.
This is because the rotational feature recited in claim 9
and disclosed in Raber is not compatible with the tool of
Tremblay. In order to effect the functionally necessary rotation
of socket 18, Tremblay’s shank 16 and sleeve or body 10 must be
rotationally fixed with respect to one another. It follows that
the tool would be incapable of operating in the manner disclosed
2 It is appropriate to point out that Raber is unnecessary
with respect to the rejection of claim 4 given the undisputed
interpretation of the claim 4 phrase “laterally offset” expressed
by the examiner in the last full paragraph on page 6 of the
answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007