Appeal No. 2004-2286
Application 09/960,193
(e) the second set of threads being adjacent to the drive point;
(f) the first set of threads of a high pitch number relative to the second set of threads:
(g) a break score being on the barrel between the first set of threads and the head;
(h) the break score being adapted to assist the separation of the barrel and the head; and
(i) a clear shank being on the barrel between the first set of threads and the second set of
threads.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Wilson 2,292,557 Aug. 11, 1942
Habermehl et al. (Habermehl) 6,074,149 Jun.
13, 2000
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
clearly anticipated by Wilson, and appealed claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 above, and further in view of
Habermehl.1
Appellant states the grounds of rejection under “Grouping of Claims” but does not select
a claim for consideration with respect to either ground of rejection (brief, page 5). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 4. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2002); see also 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004);
1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported finding advanced by the examiner that as a matter of fact, prima
facie, appealed claim 1 is anticipated by Wilson (Paper No. 5, page 2; answer, pages 4-6); and,
that as a matter of law, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the
combined teachings of Wilson and Habermehl the reasonable suggestion to modify the double
pitch screw of Wilson by using the square drive socket in the head of the double pitch screw by
1 The examiner states in the answer (page 3) that the grounds of rejection are set forth in the
final action mailed October 7, 2002 (Paper No. 5; page 2).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007