Appeal No. 2004-0390 Page 8
Application No. 09/727,397
provided which is biased by spring 20 into one of a plurality of detents 22. Thus, as
ratchet head 6 is rotated about ratchet housing 4, ball 18 is forced into one of the
detents 22 by spring 20. With ball 18 engaged in one of detents 22, the wrench handle
is no longer free to pivot about the ratchet head. This ensures a temporary fixing of the
pivot angle so that stability may be provided in the application of force to the pivoted
ratchet head.
After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Allen and claim 1, it is our opinion that the
only difference is the limitation that "the ratchet wheel being completely received in the
compartment of the box end when a central axis of the ratchet wheel is coincident with
a central axis of the compartment of the box end."
As set forth above, a prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. In this case, it is
our view that there is no evidence in the combined teachings of Allen and Kohal that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007