Ex Parte Somers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 21, 2006

10007189 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 21, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___

Ex parte STEVE SOMERS
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before McQUADE, CRAWFORD and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
McQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Steve Somers appeals from the final rejection (mailed October
16, 2003) of claims 8-13, 15 and 16, all of the claims pending in
the application.
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a socket wrench. Representative
claim 8 reads as follows:
8. Socket wrench-making parts adapted to form a wrench with
opposite outer ends with which can be applied over and rotate
non-circular elements of at least two sizes, said parts including:

a left and a right external driver member means-receiving part
each having a first outer end to be located at a different opposite
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

2
longitudinal outer end of the wrench when the parts are assembled
and an opposite second inner end, said left and right parts
respectively having walls defining differently-sized, non-circular
sockets in the first outer ends thereof to be located at the
opposite longitudinal ends of the assembled parts and applied over
differently sized elements to be rotated by the wrench, said
sockets each having an end opening thereat onto the exterior of the
part involved so that the socket can be applied over and its
defining walls interlock with a selected element of corresponding
size to be rotated by said wrench and an opposite end opening onto
a first smaller driver member-receiving bore in turn opening upon a
second ball member-forming part-receiving bore, said first smaller
driver member-receiving bore having bore-defining walls adapted to
interlock with an external driver member means sized to be inserted
into the open end of the associated larger outer socket and then
moved inwardly into the associated driver member-receiving bore
where it interlocks with said left or right part involved so that
so that rotation of the driver member will rotate the wrench and
turn said element enveloped by said socket at the other end of the
assembled wrench;

a ball member-forming part adapted to be secured to and
between the said second inner ends of said left and right external
driver member means-receiving parts, the second inner ends of the
left and right parts respectively having walls defining a pair of
ball member-receiving surfaces, at least one of which forms a
ball-receiving bore; said ball member-forming part having a ball-
forming end adapted to adjustably fit in said ball-receiving bore
of one of said left and right parts and an [sic] a second end
adapted to be fixedly mounted against the ball member-receiving
surfaces of the other of said left and right parts; and

pivot-forming first and second means permitting the pivoting
of said ball-forming end of said ball member-forming part in the
ball-receiving bore involved at least in a plane which includes a
longitudinal axis extending between said outer ends of the wrench.

Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

3
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the final
rejection are:
Gadberry 1,478,736 Dec. 25, 1923
Bellows 1,584,208 May 11, 1926
Martinez 4,807,499 Feb. 28, 1989
Jarvis 6,092,441 Jul. 25, 2000
THE REJECTION
Claims 8-13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jarvis or Martinez in view of
either Gadberry or Bellows. According to the examiner,
Jarvis or Martinez shows the claimed invention
except for the use of a socket portion in both “socket
forming and driver receiving pads”[ ]1 that has two
different size apertures in each. Either Gadberry or
Bellows suggests that a driver can have such a double
aperture socket so that the drive receiving aperture is
the inner aperture. It would therefore be obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Jarvis or Martinez by using a socket portion
having two apertures per socket portion because either
Gadberry or Bellows suggests the use of such a double
aperture socket in a single tool [answer, page 3].

1 The appealed claims do not include this terminology. In a paper filed August 26, 2003, the
appellant amended the claims to refer instead to left and right external driver member means-receiving
parts.
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

4

Attention is directed to the brief (filed March 16, 2004) and
answer (mailed May 14, 2004) for the respective positions of the
appellant and examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
Jarvis pertains to “articulating socket adapter[s] that can
accommodate different sizes of socket square drives and sockets”
(column 1, lines 60-61). Each of the adapters disclosed (see
Figures 2, 5, 13 and 18) consists of two square drive sections
connected together by an articulated joint. In use (see column 5,
lines 4-19), the two square drive sections are respectively coupled
to a socket (see Figures 1 and 9-11) and a multi-size drive adapter
(see Figures 1, 6-8 and 15-17).
Martinez discloses a socket wrench comprising a drive shaft 5,
a cylindrical drive member 2 mounted to one end of the shaft and a

2 On page 1 in the brief, the appellant concedes that the appealed claims are in need of
amendment to correct a number of inconsistencies. In the event of further prosecution before the
examiner, the claims should be carefully reviewed and amended toward this end.
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

5
socket 21 connected to the other end of the shaft via an
articulated joint.
In applying Jarvis and Martinez against the appealed claims,
the examiner fails to set forth any reasonably detailed findings as
to the manner in which these references are considered to meet or
not meet the various limitations in the claims. Notwithstanding
the examiner’s apparent determination to the contrary, Jarvis and
Martinez do not seem to be particularly relevant to the subject
matter claimed. For example, neither reference teaches or suggests
left and right external driver member means-receiving parts having
the particular socket, driver receiving bore and ball member
receiving bore/walls recited in independent claims 1, 13 and 15, or
the structural relationship between the left, right and ball member
parts recited in claims 13 and 15. These substantial evidentiary
deficiencies in Jarvis and Martinez find no cure in the examiner’s
further application of either Gadberry or Bellows.
Hence, as applied by the examiner, Jarvis, Martinez, Gadberry
and Bellows do not justify a conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in independent claims 8, 13 and
15 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

6
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claims 8, 13 and 15, and dependent claims 9-12 and 16, as being
unpatentable over Jarvis or Martinez in view of either Gadberry or
Bellows.

SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 8-13, 15 and 16
is reversed.
REVERSED

JOHN P. McQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Comment [jvn1]: Type address
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

7

JDB/ki
Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189

8
Russell E. Hattis
1640 Jasmine Court
Highland Park, IL 60035