Ex Parte Dobson et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0526                                                        
          Application No. 09/981,975                                                  


          1.   A tool for driving headed fasteners comprising:                        
                    an opening in said tool;                                          
                    said opening defined by a wall of said tool, said wall            
          having a plurality of planar surfaces, a connection surface                 
          connecting said planar surfaces at their ends to define said                
          opening, each said connection surface having a convex surface               
          continuous with said planar surface and a concave surface                   
          continuous with said convex surfaces, said concave and convex               
          surfaces define arcs with said arcs having the same radius.[1]              
               The references applied in the final rejection are:                     
          Dossier             4,581,957           Apr. 15, 1986                       
          Colvin              4,930,378           June 05, 1990                       
               Claims 1-4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as          
          being unpatentable over Dossier or Colvin.                                  
               Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper          
          Nos. 16 and 22) and to the final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.           
          11 and 18) for the respective positions of appellants and the               
          examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.                            

               1The term “said convex surfaces” (plural) in the next to the           
          last line of the claim lacks a proper antecedent.  At oral                  
          hearing, counsel for appellants, when queried as to whether claim           
          1 required each connecting surface to have more than one convex             
          surface, stated that the intent was to define each connection               
          surface as having two convex surfaces and a concave surface.                
          Accordingly, we interpret claim 1 as calling for the connection             
          surfaces to each have a first convex surface continuous with one            
          planar surface, a second convex surface continuous with another             
          planar surface, and a concave surface continuous with the first             
          and second convex surfaces.  Upon return of this application to             
          the Technology Center, claim 1 should be amended to reflect this            
          claim interpretation.                                                       
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007