Appeal No. 97-0759
Application 08/155,564
and 2 of Karl). Thus, Hagberg’s contact stem or control pin 45
has no apparent operative role in the assembly of Karl. And
certainly, of course, Hagberg’s contact stem or control pin 45
cannot replace Karl’s spring 11. Spring 11 of Karl serves two
important functions, one being the forming of an electrical
connection from the head structure to a terminal on the bottom of
the housing assembly and the other being the center biasing of
head structure 9. Hagberg’s contact stem 45 is not capable of
performing either function since it is an insulator and is
evidently substantially thick and rigid (see column 2, line 70 to
column 3, line 4). For these reasons, we do not see how one with
ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably motivated to employ
Hagberg’s contact stem in Karl’s assembly. Moreover, even if we
ignore the lack of a proper contact stem in the examiner's
combination of the two references, the examiner's analysis is
erroneous for another reason. Independent claim 6 requires an O-
ring for engaging the spherical portion of the ball structure to
urge the frustoconical surface of the ball into engagement with
the frustoconical surface of the housing. Neither Karl nor
Hagberg discloses an O-ring for any purpose. The examiner simply
states (answer at 8), in a conclusory manner without any
supporting evidence:
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007