Appeal 2006-2838
Application 10/257,576
Thompson in combination with Walton, and claim 60 is not rendered obvious by
Thompson in combination with McCoy and Walton.
Claims 63 and 64 recite a tool that can engage a plurality of spring action
joints according to claims 39 and 41, respectively, so that the plurality of spring
action joints can be torqued simultaneously. We interpret these claims as
independent claims requiring only a tool capable of engaging a plurality of spring
action joints according to claims 39 and 41 to apply simultaneous torque to the
joints. Neither claim 39 nor 41 recites a particular configuration for the outer
peripheries of the claimed threaded part or of the claimed washers. The
specification does not limit the shape of the outer periphery of the fasteners. As
such, any tool capable of applying torque to the spring action joint of claims 39
and 41 would anticipate claims 63 and 64.
Junkers discloses a tool 7 that simultaneously provides torque to a plurality
of joints 4, 6 (Junkers, Figure 5 and col. 3, ll. 3-10). The joints of Junkers include
gears 6 and the tool 7 has a plurality of teeth 8 corresponding to the teeth of the
gears 6 (Junkers, col. 2, ll. 42-43). Thus, the tool disclosed in Junkers is capable of
engaging a plurality of spring action joints, such as those recited in claims 39 and
41. Accordingly, claims 63 and 64 are anticipated by Junkers. Since anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 63
and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181
USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); and In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USQPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013