Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
Appellants contend that the blind bolt, or fastening nut, of
Morse requires a threaded retention member 54 positioned within
the acoustic panel to receive the fastening nut. Appellants
maintain that "[t]he present invention eliminates the need for a
retention member to be embedded in the acoustic panel, and
therefore results in a uniform acoustic treatment effectiveness"
(page 6 of principal brief, paragraph four). However, we concur
with the examiner that appellants' argument is not commensurate
in scope with the rejected claims. The rejected claims do not
define any particular structure for the blind fasteners. Hence,
since the receiving nut of Morse is installed prior to assembly
and may, therefore, be considered as part of the structural
panel, there is no structural, patentable distinction between the
blind fastening nut of Morse and the blind fasteners within the
scope of the rejected claims.
The § 103 rejection of claims 3, 8, 9, 18 and 19 over
Birbragher or Dhoore in view of Morse essentially involves the
same issue of the obviousness of replacing the fasteners of
Birbragher and Dhoore with the blind fasteners of Morse. We
concur with the examiner that the requisite motivation arises
from the obviousness of replacing one form of fastener with
another known fastener which provides the same basic function.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007