Appeal 2007-0676
Application 09/803,221
realized by substituting the collar of Damm (Appeal Br. 7-8). Appellants argue
that Aukzemas, relied on by the Examiner for the rejection of dependent claims
2-5, fails to cure the deficiencies of Ernest and Damm (Appeal Br. 9).
The Examiner held that it would have been obvious to have a collar, as
taught in Damm, formed on the shank of Ernest to facilitate assembly of the screw
in the ferrule and to operate as a standoff to engage a surface of a panel to limit
penetration (Answer 4). The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in determining that the subject matter claim 1 is obvious in
view of Ernest and Damm and the subject matter of claims 2-5 is obvious in view
of Ernest, Damm, and Aukzemas.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
Ernest discloses a captive screw fastener 10 comprising a screw 14
extending through a hole 16 formed generally centrally in a retainer (ferrule) 18
(Ernest, col. 2, ll. 34-36). The screw 14 has a head 38 at an upper part, a threaded
portion 36 at a lower part, and a neck (shank) 44 between the head 38 and threaded
end 36 (Ernest, col. 2, ll. 55-56 and 62-65). As shown in Figure 2, the neck 44 of
the screw 14 is adapted to pass through the retainer 18 (Ernest, Fig. 2). Ernest
further discloses a locking element (collar) 56 “preferably of ring shape, and of
plastic material, such as nylon” (Ernest, col. 3, ll. 11-13). “The locking element 56
has a central hole 58 which makes a loose fit with the screw neck 44, but the outer
circular surface of the locking element, however, makes a tight fit with the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013