Appeal No. 2001-2595
Application 09/245,640
V-block (at 114), we share the examiner’s view that the subject
matter of claim 3 on appeal would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention.
Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 24, 26 and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we agree with appellant’s arguments on
pages 8 and 9 of the brief that there would be no logical reason
for one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt to modify the
pins or dowels (P) of Hennessey to have a rounded surface on the
outer end thereof as in the pins of the vise in Peterson, since
the pins of these two patents operate in entirely different ways
to hold a work piece in position between the vise jaws. Note
particularly Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Hennessey and
Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Peterson. Moreover, we note that each of
claims 20, 24, 26 and 30 includes reference to an “arc block”
like that seen in Figures 7 and 8 of appellant’s drawings. No
such “arc block” is shown or disclosed in Hennessey, Meyer or
Peterson. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 20,
24, 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007