Appeal No. 96-1305
Application 08/188,629
Generally for the reasons expressed by the appellants in
the brief, we reverse both rejections of all claims on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 18 and 19, with
respect to independent claim 18, the reasoning advanced by the
examiner in the answer appears to be misplaced since the
statement of the rejection at pages 2 and 3 of the answer
indicates a reference to appellants’ disclosed invention in
Fig. 2. However, in context with the responsive remarks
portion of pages 5 and 6 of the answer, the examiner is
referring to appellants’ prior art Fig. 12 as a basis for the
rejection in addition to certain portions of the background of
the invention at specification pages 2 and 3.
Although we would agree with the examiner’s position that
it would have been obvious that the claimed semi-spherical
surface of a supporting member may be read upon two semi-
spherical surfaces of ball 2 in appellants’ Fig. 12, the
examiner’s position presumes that the remaining portions of
Fig. 12 meet the rest of the claim recitations in claim 18.
The examiner’s position misreads and therefore misapplies the
teachings and showings associated with this figure against
claim 18. The claimed relationship of the various elements of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007