Appeal No. 95-2405
Application No. 07/969,663
the rocker is mounted to the collar such that during pivotal
motion of the rocker, a first circuit is completed but during a
sliding action of the collar, a second circuit is completed. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide a
separate collar in which the rocker pivots “because the separate
collar would ensure that the sliding movement to actuate the
second circuit would not accidentally occur during a pivotal
movement of the rocker” [Paper No. 5, page 3].
The examiner’s rationale does not appear to be unreasonable
to us and, since the examiner has identified what elements of the
prior art are considered to correspond to the claimed invention,
where the differences lie, and why the artisan would have found
the claimed subject matter as a whole obvious in view of the
prior art, the examiner appears to have made out a prima facie
case of obviousness.
The burden has been shifted to appellant to establish,
by argument and/or objective evidence, why the examiner’s
finding of obviousness is erroneous.
At page 6 of the principal brief, appellant merely sets
forth what is recited in claim 8 and then sets forth a
single argument, to wit,
Claim 8 has the rocker pivotally mounted on the slider
such that the shorting contacts mounted on the rocker
are away from the pivot point to effect sliding or
wiping action. Stevenson relies on pivoting contact on
the housing to provide his electrical common function
first time in the examiner’s principal answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007