Appeal No. 2005-1571 8
Application No. 10/263,275
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 18 and 26, and
dependent claims 2 through 6, 8 through 12, 14 through 17, 19
through 25 and 27-33, as being unpatentable over Ashcraft in view
of Kraft.
As indicated above, independent claim 34 recites a method
for making a slip-fit electrical connector for a threaded
transformer stud comprising, inter alia, the step of forming a
transformer stud receiving passageway by drilling at least one
bore and forming at least one set of threads along surfaces of
the bore “using helical interpolation.” The use of helical
interpolation to form threads is a well known expedient in the
milling art whereby, as acknowledged by the appellant, “a thread
milling machine causes two axes to move in a circular path as a
third axis moves in a linear path as will be appreciated by those
skilled in the art” (specification, page 10). In rejecting claim
37, the examiner chose not to cite this prior art practice as
evidence of obviousness. Instead, the examiner relies solely on
the combined teachings of Ashcraft in view of Kraft to make the
rejection, but fails to cogently explain how or why such
teachings would have suggested the use of helical interpolation
specified in the claim. The examiner’s position that the subject
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007