Appeal 2006-2308
Application 10/343,154
portion being closer to a head molding part of the cavity than to the base
molding part of the cavity (Figs. 6-9).” (Answer 5). The Examiner
maintains that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a hyperboloid-
shaped interlocking means as taught by Thomas in the method of Hammer,
because doing so would have provided enhanced shear strength at the base
of the fastener and decreased rigidity at the top of the fastener, allowing for
easier removal from the substrate. (Answer 5).
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that Thomas
discloses the “hyperboloid shape” of the appealed claims. Answer 6.
Appellant notes that Thomas discloses “laterally or rotationally
asymmetrical” shapes (i.e., the two opposite sides of the cavities are not
mirror images of one another). According to Appellant, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not have considered using these asymmetrical shapes in the
Hammer method which is limited to rotationally symmetrical shapes.
(Appeal Br. 5). In particular, Appellant maintains that nothing in the
Hammer and Thomas patents indicates why the decreasing radii curvature
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007