Appeal 2006-1555
Application 10/101,228
USPQ2d at 1444; Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the appellant and the examiner. We find ourselves in
agreement with the appellant that none of the applied prior art teaches
“longitudinal grooves in sectioned lines” (Claim 1) or a tubular member with
internal and external threads “provided with longitudinal grooves” to inhibit
spontaneous rotation (Claim 3).
Krawczak discloses a tie rod assembly that admittedly lacks a
plurality of grooves. The examiner has cited Ricca as showing a plurality of
grooves (7a, 10) on external and internal threads. In reality, the threaded
portions of Ricca are roughened. The preferred form of roughening is
diamond knurling. Col. 2, ll. 14-16. While we acknowledge the examiner’s
argument that the valley between two longitudinally juxtaposed knurling
peaks is a groove, we agree with appellant that this is a strained
interpretation of the term “groove.” We are confident that one of ordinary
skill would not regard such a valley as a “groove” in the ordinary or
customary usage of that word.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013