Ex Parte Frattarola - Page 4



             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