Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the final
rejection are:
Gadberry 1,478,736 Dec. 25, 1923
Bellows 1,584,208 May 11, 1926
Martinez 4,807,499 Feb. 28, 1989
Jarvis 6,092,441 Jul. 25, 2000
THE REJECTION
Claims 8-13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jarvis or Martinez in view of
either Gadberry or Bellows. According to the examiner,
Jarvis or Martinez shows the claimed invention
except for the use of a socket portion in both “socket
forming and driver receiving pads”[ ]1 that has two
different size apertures in each. Either Gadberry or
Bellows suggests that a driver can have such a double
aperture socket so that the drive receiving aperture is
the inner aperture. It would therefore be obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Jarvis or Martinez by using a socket portion
having two apertures per socket portion because either
Gadberry or Bellows suggests the use of such a double
aperture socket in a single tool [answer, page 3].
1 The appealed claims do not include this terminology. In a paper filed August 26, 2003, the
appellant amended the claims to refer instead to left and right external driver member means-receiving
parts.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007