Appeal No. 1997-1332
Application 08/217,079
We now turn to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Firstly, we address the rejection of claims 26 through
29, 33, 34, 36, 37 and 39 through 46 in light of the collective
teachings and showings of Konno, Heilmann, Mears, Wahl,
Kashiwabuchi, and Onishi. Included within this claim grouping
are independent claims 26, 40, and 43.
We reverse this rejection.
Each of independent claims 26, 40, and 43 on appeal recite
in part the following:
means integrally formed in said case members, during
manufacture of said case members, for resiliently
retaining each body in its associated case member even
when said case members are separated from one another;
. . .
said means for resiliently retaining each body
within the associated case member allows the body to
move freely relative to the associated case member
while preventing the body from being inadvertently
removed from the associated case member when said case
members are separated from one another.
The principal argument presented by appellant relates to
these features recited in the above noted quoted material. Two
characteristics of this quoted material are that the magnetic
bodies are freely movable relative to the case members and that
the magnetic bodies are not disconnected from the case member
once assembled therewith as noted by the examiner at the middle
of page 5 of the answer. To these we add that each body is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007