Appeal No. 2005-0180 4
Application No. 09/928,070
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
With regard to the rejection of claims 8 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the
examiner has pointed to the blind fastener (10) of Kendall and urged that pin (14)
therein constitutes a stylus having a stem and a break-off/breakneck region (24)
provided in the stem and consisting of a changed structure of a stem material formed
along the circumference of the stem and wherein the diameter of the stem (14) at the
break-off point (24), is considered substantially unchanged because, in the examiner’s
view, the area removed from the break-off/breakneck region (24) is so small that it will
not give a considerable change in the diameter of the stem.
After having carefully reviewed the Kendall patent, we find that we are in total
agreement with appellant’s position as set forth in the brief and reply brief that the stem
or pin (14) of Kendall does not have a break-off region “consisting of a changed
structure of a stem material wherein a diameter of the stem in the break-off region
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007