Appeal No. 2006-1282 Παγε 5
Application No. 10/361,899
because the appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these claims. See In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 6 and 8 to 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee. The examiner, recognizing that Lee
does not describe the locking mechanism for the embodiment depicted in Figures 10
and 14, states that Lee describes a locking mechanism in connection with an
embodiment depicted in Figure 27, and concludes that it would have been obvious to
include the described locking mechanism of Figure 27 in the embodiment of Figures 10
and 14. In regard to the recitation in claim 1 that the first and second gripping elements
are rotatably coupled, the examiner states:
Lee further teaches an alternative embodiment shown in Fig.
26 that shows using a rotatable coupling 135, column 8,
lines 48-63. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the embodiment of Figs. 14 and 18 to
include a rotatable coupling as shown in the embodiment of
Fig. 26 in order to obtain increased holding force [answer at
page 4].
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify the embodiment depicted
in Figures 14 and 18 so as to have gripping elements that are rotatably coupled as
depicted in Figure 26. We agree with the appellant that :
. . . Lee states that the conditions which require “greater
holding forces” are pulling posterior teeth and removing
crowns which have been partially cemented but require
removal. Lee, col. 8, lines 54-63. The conditions are
corrected using the crown removal forceps 130, not the ball
gripping force[p]s 22 or the crown gripping forceps 30. That
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007