Appeal 2006-2838
Application 10/257,576
5. Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thompson, McCoy, and Walton.
6. Claim 63 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thompson and Junkers.
7. Claim 64 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thompson, McCoy, and Junkers.
FIRST ISSUE
The Appellant contends claims 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51-53, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69,
75-79, and 82 are not anticipated by Thompson, and claims 41-44, 46, 48, 50, 54,
57, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 74, and 80 are not rendered obvious by Thompson in
combination with other prior art references, because Thompson fails to teach or
suggest a washer that is resiliently deformable (Brief 8-14). The Examiner
contends Thompson discloses that element 10 is a “spring washer,” and therefore it
must have elastic properties (Answer 10). The Examiner further contends that
Thompson’s washer 10 will elastically deform as it move towards the nut 4 when
the teeth 13 of the nut 4 interact with the teeth 12 of the washer 10 (Answer 10-
11). The issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Thompson teaches or suggests a washer that is resiliently
deformable at least up to when it is subjected to a joint preloading force created by
tightening the joint up to a preloaded state.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013