Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
independent claims 23, 31, and 58, or their dependent claims 33, 37-39, 41, 61, and
62.
Rejection of claim 40 as unpatentable over Rivard, Schwartz, and Nickerson
Claim 40 depends from claim 33 and further recites “wherein the spacer
section comprises a hollow body that is barrel shaped and provided with a plurality
of longitudinally extending ribs formed in a periphery of the spacer.” The
Examiner relied on the combination of Rivard and Schwartz for disclosure of the
claimed invention except for the claimed spacer section, as recited in claim 40
(Answer 11). The Examiner found that Nickerson discloses such a spacer
section 30 (Id.). The Appellant argues that neither Schwartz, Rivard, nor
Nickerson teaches a sleeve nut and the Examiner’s interpretation of “sleeve nut” is
overly broad because it ignores the word “sleeve” entirely (Appeal Br. 13).
As we found supra, Nickerson discloses a sleeve nut threaded onto the
threaded end of the stud shaft (Finding of Fact 9). Thus, the Appellant’s argument
has failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40.4
4 We invite the Examiner to consider whether the subject matter of any of the other
pending claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in
view of the teachings of Nickerson in combination with Schwartz, Rivard, and/or
Borst in light of our holding of obviousness of dependent claim 40.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013