Appeal No. 95-1296
Application 08/073,257
With respect to the linking step, the examiner
acknowledges that linking is not explicitly taught by Fitzgerald
but argues that it would have been obvious to the artisan so that
correct tolerance information would always be displayed to the
viewer [answer, pages 9-10]. Of course, the step of linking a
face of the object with the datum and the tolerance data is the
linchpin of the invention because it links which face corresponds
to which tolerance. We can find no teaching in Fitzgerald which
links a particular face of the object with the datum and
tolerance data as recited in claim 10. We also cannot accept the
examiner’s rationale as to why it would have been obvious to
provide this linking step because it is based on the results
achieved by appellants rather than on the teachings of the prior
art. The examiner cannot rely on the advantages achieved by
appellants as a basis to support the obviousness of the claimed
invention. Since we agree with appellants that the linking step
as recited in claim 10 is not suggested or made obvious by
Fitzgerald, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 12-
15.
With respect to independent claim 21, we agree with
appellants that the specific claimed relationship between the
first and second geometric portions and the datum and the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007