Appeal No. 97-0081
Application No. 08/226,532
We agree with the appellants that nothing in the applied
prior art teaches or suggests providing the second mounting nut
of Zvanut with a camming/conical surface which engages the edge
of the second aperture for driving the first and second legs
together for applying clamping force to the toolbar between the
first and second legs as the mounting nuts are tightened as
recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 12. While Robinson
certainly teaches the use of nuts C and C' having conical
surfaces, they are disclosed as being drawn into firm contact
with the walls of the apertures B and B "to insure an exceeding2 3
good electrical connection between adjacent rails" (page 1,
lines 47-49), not drive the legs of conductor A together in the
manner claimed by the appellants.
As stated in W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984),
[t]o imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge
of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or
references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to
fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome
wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against
its teacher.
It is our conclusion that the only reason to combine the
teachings of the applied prior art references in the manner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007