Appeal No. 96-1416
Application 08/118,066
With respect to the axial bore limitation the examiner states, without further
evidence or reasoning, that the axial bore of Vickers with its smaller circular cylindrical
medial portion is “equivalent” to the claimed polygonal channel of appellant.
Leaving aside for the moment that the examiner has not established what criteria
are to be used to determine whether the bore of Vickers is equivalent to the bore of
appellant’s claim, we further point out that mere functional or mechanical equivalence
does not establish obviousness. Expedients which are functionally equivalent are not
necessarily obvious in view of one another. In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016, 1019, 139
USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA 1963). Therefore the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 5 and 9 through 11 are reversed.
With respect to the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 9, we
acknowledge that the examiner is generally correct with respect to his observation
about the frame defining an access opening rather than an access panel. However, it
is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to establish the
metes and bounds of the claimed invention notwithstanding the manner in which the
access panel is defined in claim 1. With respect to the examiner’s other observation,
namely the use of the word “internal” which should be “inner” and the use of “key”
which should appear as “lock,” we note that the appellant has admitted that these minor
errors should be corrected. Here again, these minor errors do not serve to obscure the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007