Appeal No. 2004-2286
Application 09/960,193
score” does not detract from the teaching of the square socket drive therein, for indeed, we find
that one of ordinary skill in this art would have added a break score to the double pitch screw of
Habermehl in view of the break score on the double pitch screw of Wilson for the advantages
shown in Wilson.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed all of the evidence of anticipation and of obviousness found in the applied prior art with
appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for non-anticipation and nonobviousness,
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 would
have been anticipated as a matter of fact under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 4 and 8 would have been obvious as a matter of law
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007