Appeal No. 97-0759
Application 08/155,564
[I]t is well known in the art of joystick switches that
o-rings and springs are interchangeable because both o-
rings and springs provide resiliency in order to return
a switch to the inactive position and for use in
centering a joystick to its neutral position.
The appellants have not claimed simply using an O-ring to
return a joystick to the neutral position. Instead, a specific
structure is recited wherein the O-ring has to act on the
spherical portion of a ball structure so that the frustoconical
portion of the ball would be urged into engagement with the
complementary frustoconical surface of the housing. The
examiner's position, if adopted, would automatically regard as
obvious any structure making use of an O-ring to return a
joystick to the neutral location. In the answer on page 8, lines
17-21, the examiner clearly indicates his position that the
interchangeability of springs and O-rings would render obvious
any structure making use of an O-ring to interact with the
surface of a joystick "whatever [is] the shape of the surface."
The examiner's view is without merit and unsupported by
evidence in the record. The position is over-inclusive. There
are a myriad of ways an O-ring may be made to interact with a
whole variety of different structures and surfaces. It cannot be
presumed that all such interactions would have been obvious to
one with ordinary skill in the art. To make out a prima facie
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007