Appeal No. 2004-1500
Application No. 09/736,673
tool that uses such a path of movement to be well known” (answer,
page 4; emphasis deleted). We disagree.
As correctly explained by the Appellants, Corghi’s bead-
mounting tool 9, in fact, is stationary during the mounting
operation. While this tool is vertically positionable prior to the
mounting operation, it does not move during the mounting operation
(e.g., see lines 30-59 in column 2, lines 22-34 in column 3 and
lines 17-37 in column 4). As a consequence, the Corghi reference
contains no teaching or suggestion of the Appellants’ claim 9
limitation of a bead-mounting tool moveable along “at least one
non-circular tire-mounting path,” contrary to the Examiner’s
belief.
Thus, even if the teachings of Onuma and Corghi were to be
combined somehow, the resulting combination would not yield a
tire mounting apparatus of the type here claimed. For this reason
alone, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). It
follows that we cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 9-12 as being unpatentable over Onuma in view of Corghi.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007