Appeal 2007-2875
Application 10/447,732
1 With respect to the rejection of the claims on obviousness grounds, we note
2 the argument of the Appellant that it would not have been obvious to use the
3 fastener of Grünbichler in the stump cutter of Manning. We agree. As noted
4 above in our Findings of Fact, Grünbichler is directed to a tamper-proof or
5 inherently non-removable bolt or screw. It is unclear to us why a person of
6 ordinary skill would use such a tamper-proof or non-removable fastener in the
7 stump cutter disclosed in Manning. The bolts 132, 134 are provided in Manning so
8 that the cutters 42, 44 may be exchanged when they become dull or broken. The
9 use of a tamper-proof or non-removable bolt simply makes this procedure more
10 cumbersome or inconvenient to the user. For this reason, it is our view that one of
11 ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to replace the conventional bolt of
12 Manning with the tamper-proof, non-removable bolt or screw disclosed by
13 Grünbichler. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 5-9 and 16-20 under
14 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
16 CONCLUSION
17 The rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed.
18 The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
19 Grünbichler is affirmed.
20 The rejection of claims 5-9 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
21 over Manning in view of Grünbichler is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013