Appeal No. 97-2148
Application 08/295,829
and distinctly claim the subject matter sought to be patented,
the examiner’s position is not well taken.3
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
There appears to be no dispute that Ayme discloses the
subject matter of claim 1 except that the nib 14 of the auxiliary
nib unit is not movable axially of the auxiliary nib unit
housing, as called for in claim 1. According to the examiner, it
would have been obvious to mount Ayme’s nib 14 for axial movement
in the auxiliary housing in view of the teachings of Fukui and
Yokosuka, the motivation for so doing “[being] provided by the
secondary patents” (answer, page 4, line 1) and “to reduce wear
on the nib” (answer, page 4, last line).
Fukui discloses a marker having a single needle-like nib 2
mounted for axial sliding movement within a nib holder pipe 1.
The interior end of the nib 2 has bent sections 2a, 2b on each
end of a section 2c generally transverse to the nib. The bent
3We note that the rejection here is not under the fourth
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, which requires a dependent claim to
further limit the claim from which it depends. In any event, the
dependent claims in question further limit the subject matter of
independent claim 1 in the sense that they further describe or
limit the nib of the marker implement with which the claimed
conversion unit is to be used.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007