Appeal No. 96-3463
Application 08/514,835
relatively large angle while the other gripping die is mounted
for rotation through a relatively small angle, with no reason
whatsoever being set forth as to what advantages such an
arrangement might provide. Although the examiner opines that the
incorporation of the arrangement of Schulze-Beckinghausen into
the device of Hauk would "allow for better gripping and
ungripping," there is nothing in Schulze-Beckinghausen which
either teaches or suggests that this is the case.
In our view, the examiner has impermissibly relied upon the
appellant's own teachings in arriving at a conclusion of obvious-
ness. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the combined teachings of Hauk and Schulze-Beckinghausen.
Turning to the rejection of claims 15, 17, 21 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk in view of
Wheeler or Inoue, it is the examiner's position that:
It would therefore be [sic, have been] obvious to one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Hauk by using one movable jaw die and one
fixed jaw die because either Wheeler or Inoue suggests
the use of one movable jaw die and one fixed jaw die to
allow for better gripping and ungripping. [Answer,
page 3.]
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007