Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
(answer, page 8) that the pins are the “full structural and
functional equivalent” of the wall 44 on pawl 30 of Main '025.
We will not sustain this rejection. It is questionable
to us whether a wall is the structural equivalent of pins, but
even if it is, the mere existence of structural and functional
equivalence does not establish obviousness. In re Flint, 330
F.2d 363, 367, 141 USPQ 299, 302 (CCPA 1964). The examiner has
presented no evidence and/or reasons as to why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ locating
pins, as claimed, in the wrench of Main '025.
The rejection of claim 11 will accordingly not be
sustained.
Rejection (3)
The examiner takes the position that the apparatus
recited in claims 4 and 27 would have been obvious over Main '025
or '940 in view of Flynn, further in view of Gummow. Since
(i) we have held above that claim 24 is not unpatentable over
Main '025 or '940 in view of Flynn, (ii) claim 27 is dependent on
claim 24, and (iii) Gummow does not supply the deficiency noted
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007