Appeal No. 96-0957
Application 08/138,359
skill in this art would have been motivated to seek out the
disparate locking/holding means of Quaas and incorporate it into
the device of Feeney in the manner proposed by the examiner
(i.e., by substituting the locking/holding means of Quaas for the
locking/holding means of Feeney). Indeed, if such a substitution
of locking/holding means were made, Feeney’s intended function of
limiting travel of his piston (and, hence, his needle) in both
directions would apparently be destroyed. Cf. Ex parte Hartmann,
186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd. App. 1974).
With respect to the rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Feeney, Quaas
and Wilkins, we have carefully reviewed the teachings of Wilkins
but find nothing therein which would overcome the above-noted
deficiencies of Feeney and Quaas.
In view of the foregoing the examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 6-11 and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES M. MEISTER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007