Appeal No. 2005-1571 9
Application No. 10/263,275
claim limitation is met merely because the corresponding threads
disclosed by the references are helical in nature (see page 5 in
the answer) finds no evidentiary support in either reference.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 34, and dependent claims
35 through 37, as being unpatentable over Ashcraft in view of
Kraft.
II. Remand to the examiner
The application is remanded to the examiner to determine
whether Ashcraft and/or Kraft, considered in conjunction with the
admitted prior art practice of forming threads by helical
interpolation, would have rendered the subject matter recited in
any one of claims 34-37 obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103(a), and if so to enter an appropriate rejection. Using claim
34 as an example, it would appear that the only difference
between the subject matter claimed and that disclosed by Ashcraft
lies in the recitation of helical interpolation to form the
threads in the transformer stud receiving passageway.
SUMMARY
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007