Appeal No. 97-0750
Application 08/329,219
Looking to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2
and 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must agree with
appellant (brief, pages 5-7) that the examiner's combination of
Grassl and Richter is based on hindsight reasoning derived only
from appellant's disclosure and not on the fair teachings of the
prior
art references themselves. Given the significant differences in
the devices and fluid systems involved in Grassl and Richter, and
the disparate objectives sought to be achieved by these
references, we see no way that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to their combination as proposed by the
examiner in the rejection before us on appeal. Moreover,
contrary to the examiner's factual findings, we find no
disclosure in Richter of "means to adjust the compressive forces
in the form of clamping plates and adjustable screws" (answer,
page 4). Thus, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1,
2 and 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Grassl and
Richter must be reversed.
With regard to the examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we note that this issue
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007