Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
although, admittedly, the artisan might reasonably infer from the
statements in column 4, lines 27-32, to the effect that an
unillustrated peg can be inserted in either bore 37 of bore 38'
to limit movement of the active jaw 27, that this jaw is in fact
pivotally mounted about pin 37 as the examiner asserts.
In any event, even if we were to agree with the examiner's
finding that in Schulze-Beckinghausen the jaw 26 is mounted for
rotation through a relatively large angle and that the jaw 27 is
mounted for rotation through a relatively small angle, the mere
fact that this is the case does not serve as a proper motivation
to combine the teachings of Hauk and Schulze-Beckinghausen in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Instead, it is the teachings of
the prior art which must suggest the desirability of the proposed
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Hauk teaches that both
gripping dies should be mounted for rotation through relatively
large angles in order to achieve the advantage of high stress
concentration and thus prevent slippage (see column 9). On the
other hand, Schulze-Beckinghausen (even when construed in a light
most favorable to the examiner's position) at the most teaches
that one gripping die is mounted for rotation through a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007