Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
substantially the same wobble force, wobble time,
and wobble angle was applied to the two specimens.
At this point, we must direct attention to the fact that
claim 1 recites “an angular or oval opening” in the back plate
and a pin of “substantially circular cross-section” whereas,
in the words of the appellant, the tests are directed to a pin
having a circular cross-section and an opening having a square
cross-section. While the tests therefore may be relevant to
several of the dependent claims, which contain these
limitations, they clearly have no nexus to the more broad
recitation of the invention presented in representative claim
1 or, for that matter, with regard to any of the other
independent claims. Therefore, the scope of the evidence
supplied is not commensurate with the breadth of
representative claim 1, to which it purports to apply, and it
fails at the outset to be worthy of any weight when set off
against the prima facie case of obviousness established
against the subject matter of this claim. Nevertheless, in
keeping with our desire to expeditiously adjudicate the issues
in this case, we shall press forward and evaluate the evidence
as if it were applicable to the invention of all the claims,
as apparently was the appellant’s intent.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007