Appeal No. 96-0873
Application 08/132,380
3
magnitude. As to Maynard, it is our opinion that the examiner’s determinations regarding
the scope and content of this reference are based on a hindsight reading of the disclosure
thereof rather than on anything fairly taught by the reference. As aptly noted by appellant on
page 10 of the brief, Maynard is designed to ensure that the tubular member 4 moves to its
outwardly extended position irrespective of any frictional forces between members 1 and
4. Accordingly, even if the examiner is correct that members 1 and 4 of Maynard are in
frictional contact, Maynard’s silence as to utilizing any such frictional forces that may exist
to inhibit relative movement between members 1 and 4 undermines the examiner’s
position that Maynard would have suggested the kind of modification of De Vries required
to arrive at the claimed subject matter. In this regard, Maynard is no better than De Vries,
which the examiner concedes is devoid of any teaching of using frictional forces to inhibit
relative movement of the telescoping tubes.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner has taken the position that “[e]ven with
negligible frictional force, the combinational [sic] of the spring force and friction force would
provide a balance force as claimed since in numerous cases the spring force alone would
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, appellant appears to concede that in De Vries frictional forces3
result from the engagement of the spiral member with the slot of element 14 (Figure 2) or the slotted
ends of tube member 7 (Figure 1), and that these forces, to a minor extent, act to provide a balance
force. We note, however, that the appealed claims require that frictional forces resulting from an
engagement between the telescoping tubes act in combination with spring forces to provide the
balance force.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007