Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
It does not follow that just because the head “abuts” the rear
surface, that it also applies positive pressure (e.g., the head
might only barely touch the rear surface).
Recognizing this obvious deficiency, the examiner has also
taken the position that:
When a tool is supported on the holder as shown at “S”
in figure 1, a force is created on the base member (17)
having a horizontal component acting pulling [sic] out
on the upper fastener (32). Such a force would result
in a positive pressure force of the shoulder against
the rear surface of the base member. [Answer, page 7.]
However, we must point out that, in such an instance, it is the
user which applies the positive force by a pulling action. On
the other hand, claim 22 expressly requires that it is the first
and second portions which comprise the means for applying the
positive force.
Since each and every feature set forth in claim 22 is not
taught by Muirhead, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, we will not sustain the rejection of this claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Turning to the rejection of claims 9 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchison in view of Schuplin,
the brief states that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007