Appeal 2006-2838
Application 10/257,576
SECOND ISSUE
The Appellant contends claims 75-79 and 82 are not anticipated by Durbin,
because Durbin discloses a washer with pawls instead of ratchet teeth (Brief 34-
37). The Examiner contends that Durbin’s pawls constitute the claimed ratchet
teeth (Answer 15). The issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that Durbin anticipates claims 75-79 and 82 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). More particularly, the issue before us is whether the Appellant
has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Durbin discloses a washer
having ratchet teeth on at least one side.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
Claim 75 requires that one of the two opposed sides of the washer have
ratchet teeth.
A ratchet generally refers to “[a] wheel, usually toothed, operating with a
catch or a pawl so as to rotate in only a single direction.” McGraw-Hill Dictionary
of Scientific and Technical Terms, 1653 (5th ed. 1994) (Attachment 1).
A pawl generally refers to “[t]he driving link or holding link of a ratchet
mechanism [that] permits motion in one direction only.” McGraw-Hill Dictionary
of Scientific and Technical Terms, 1459 (5th ed. 1994) (Attachment 2).
It is clear that persons skilled in the art recognize a mechanical difference
between ratchet teeth, disposed on a wheel or other component of a ratchet
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013