Appeal 2006-3059
Application 10/293,725
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed June 5, 2006). Appellants present opposing arguments in
the Appeal Brief (filed March 16, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed June 26,
2006).
OPINION
We are presented with two issues in this appeal. The first issue is
whether Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3 and 6 as anticipated by Hasan. As Appellants have not separately
argued the patentability of claims 2, 3, and 6 apart from claim 1, these
claims stand or fall with representative claim 1 (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)). The second issue is whether Appellants have
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as anticipated by
Hasan. Specifically, Appellants contend that Hasan’s fastener 24 does not
form a thread in the hole (aperture 22) of the plate 10 upon entry therein, as
required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 3-4). Appellants further contend that “the
structure of Hasan cannot reasonably be constructed as having the flat
section 12 immediately adjacent a lip surrounding the hole, since the conical
shaped depression 20 is disposed between the flat 12 and the lips” so as to
meet the limitation in claim 7 that “said flat section is immediately adjacent
a lip surrounding said at least one hole” (Appeal Br. 4-5).
We find that Hasan supports the Examiner’s position that Hasan’s
fastener 24 is a self tapping or thread forming screw that forms a thread in
the aperture 22 of Hasan’s plate 10 upon entry therein (Answer 3 and 4-5).
Specifically, Hasan teaches:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013