Appeal No. 96-2860 Page 6
Application No. 08/049,408
(4) that the cartridge housing is substantially perpendicular to
and non-coplanar with the elongated snap-fit post which extends
beside the cartridge housing.
The examiner's complete statement of the rejection is:
Doppel discloses substantially similar structure
including cartridge carrier (shank #11), plural grooves #24,
and cooperating detent means #7. Doppel lacks the snap post
detent means, plural panels and design shape. The use of a
snap post detent means is disclosed by element #23 of
Johnson, et al. It would have been obvious to a mechanic
with ordinary skill in the art to substitute such detent
means for the internal detent means of Doppel. The
motivation for such a substitution is provide [sic,
provided] by Wales which discloses both detent systems to be
equivalent, see Figure 2 and Figure 9. Lipic, Jr. discloses
the use of writing implement with reversible positions.
Bingham discloses the use of a symmetrical panels and the
design shape. Bernstein #43, 242 discloses the design
shape. [answer, p. 3]
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-9) that a prima facie
basis for the rejection of claim 41 was not presented since the
applied prior art is "devoid of any evidence which would suggest
any motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify the reference
disclosures in the manner necessary to obtain the present
invention." We agree. It is our opinion that when Döppel's
detent means (ball 8 and spring 9) has been modified be a spring
arm detent means as taught by Johnson's detent means (spring arm
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007