Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
assembly” (Answer 4). The issue before us is whether Appellant has shown that
the Examiner erred in determining that it would have been obvious to modify the
sleeve nut and grommet of Borst as claimed.
The Appellant further contends that “[n]either Schwartz, Nickerson, nor
Rivard teach[es] a ‘sleeve nut’ as recited in claims 1, 2, 15-202, 23-28, 30, 31, 33-
41, 43-51, 52, 54-58, 61, 62[,] 65, 66, 70-73, 75-77, 79, [and] 81-89” (Appeal Br.
12).3 The Examiner found that Schwartz discloses first and second sleeve nuts 88,
90 (Answer 5), Nickerson discloses a sleeve nut 33 (Answer 7), and Rivard
discloses a first sleeve nut (Answer 10). The issue before us is whether the
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Schwartz, Nickerson,
and Rivard disclose sleeve nuts.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427,
7 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary
standard for proceedings before the Office).
1. Borst discloses an automobile shackle bolt 10 having opposite threaded
ends and surrounded by a bushing 9 with a tapered nipple 11
therebetween (Borst 1:81-88; Fig. 3).
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nickerson and Schwartz.
3 We note that claim 92 also recites “a first and a second sleeve nut.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013