Appeal No. 96-0563
Application 07/540,839
presumes skill on the part of the artisan rather than the
converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect
to the examiner's rejection of appealed claim 32 under 35 3
U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined teachings of Plungis,
Bubb and Myers. It is clear from reviewing the disclosure of
the patent to Myers that the device disclosed therein is a
ratchet wrench (Figures 1 through 3 and 5) having an axially
movable dog 19 biased toward one position by spring 22 and
movable to another position by stem 23 and head 24 by movement
of the stem through slot 17, 18 in handle 8. However, like
the appellants, we find no teaching or suggestion from the
3It is our observation that the wrench including the
cam structure recited in appealed claim 32 is purportedly
depicted in Figure 5 of appellants' drawings. However, it is
apparent that the cam surface 96 must engage pin member 98 on
the opposite side from that shown in Figure 5 if rotation of
the cam handle 94 is to retract the latch 76 from the
engagement area 78 as described on pages 20 and 21 of
appellants specification. It is our view that one having
ordinary skill in this art would readily recognize this
drawing error from the description in the specification and
would know how to correct it. Accordingly,
appellants should correct Figure 5 to comply with the
description in the specification and with 37 CFR § 1.83(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007