Appeal No. 2006-0366
Application 10/382,285
member. Similarly, O’s tool 10 does not respond to the limitations
in independent claim 19 requiring (1) the step of providing means
for receiving and removably securing a drill bit at one end of the
elongated hollow tube member, and (2) the step of passing an end of
a rod member which is affixed to the head of an anchor through the
socket end of the elongated hollow tube member until the head of the
anchor is placed within the socket. In order to arrive at a device
embodying such structure and having the capability of performing
such steps, the tool 10 disclosed by O seemingly would have to be
modified to at least eliminate its attaching section 22 and threaded
rod 62. O, however, considered alone or in combination with Huang
and/or Strauch, would not have suggested such a substantial change
in basic structure. In this light, it is evident that the only
suggestion for combining O with Huang and/or Strauch so as to arrive
at the subject matter recited in claims 1, 8, and 19 stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’
disclosure.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 19, and dependent
claims 2-4, 7, 9-14, and 18, as being unpatentable over O in view of
Huang, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007