Appeal 2007-0676
Application 09/803,221
Rather, Ernest’s collar slides freely with respect to the shank and is engaged at its
outer surface against the inner surface of retainer 18. We understand the phrase
“formed on” in claim 1 to require that the collar is either formed integrally with or
otherwise affixed to the shank of the screw.
Substitution of the improved collar “formed on” the shank, as taught in
Damm, in place of the locking element of Ernest would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art. Damm discloses a swelling approximately on the
middle region of the shaft, where the swelling functions to form a stop, which acts
against a counterstop of a ferrule (formed body 3) to prevent the screw from being
removed from the ferrule (Damm, col. 5, ll. 15-26). As such, the swelling of
Damm performs the exact same function of retaining the screw as the locking
element 56 of Ernest. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
Damm’s technique of forming a swelling on the shaft to act as a stop so as to limit
the number of parts of the captive screw and for ease of assembly would improve
similar captive screws, such as Ernest’s screw, in the same way. As such, using
Damm’s technique would have been obvious, and Appellant has not provided any
evidence or argument that application of Damm’s technique to Ernest’s screw
would be beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at
1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device,
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
reasoning that it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013