Appeal No. 96-3355
Application 08/004,024
anchor themselves into one of the threaded grooves. There is not
the slightest hint in the ’138 patent that a charge case should
be twisted after it is inserted into the opening.
Since the examiner relies on the Regalbuto suggestion of
a threaded charge case to conclude that the step of twisting
would have been obvious, and since the prior art cited by
Regalbuto does not use the threaded charge case for twisting, we
find that the record in this case does not support the position
staked out by the examiner. The examiner has clearly misread the
references in an attempt to find the claimed invention
unpatentable. Although we cannot say if there is prior art which
would have suggested the obviousness of the claimed invention on
appeal, we can say that such obviousness is not demonstrated by
the prior art cited by the examiner.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 10 and 15. It follows that the rejection
of dependent claims 2-4, 11-14 and 16-18 is also improper. Thus,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-4 and 10-18 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007