Appeal 2007-0676
Application 09/803,221
threaded end of the shank and below the lower surface of the retainer, it would
perform the function of acting as a stop to prevent complete removal of the screw
and it would not interfere with tightening of the screw because when the screw was
fully inserted into the second plate 13, the collar would rest above the surface of
the plate. Further, the engagement of the threads on the threaded end of the screw
with the counter threads in the nut 15 would prevent the bias of the spring 50 from
forcing the plates 12 and 13 apart. As such, the Appellant has failed to persuade us
of an error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
Appellant argued that claims 2-5 are patentable because Aukzemas fails to
the cure the deficiencies of Ernest and Damm. Finding no such deficiencies,
Appellant has failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-5.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in
rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) claim 1 as unpatentable over Ernest and Damm
and claims 2-5 as unpatentable over Ernest, Damm, and Aukzemas.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013