Appeal No. 97-0675
Application No. 08/389,684
The examiner looks to Nordgren for the above-quoted
structure. However, we agree with the appellant that it is
only by adopting a skewed interpretation of the term
“longitudinal axis” that the examiner can conclude that the
teachings of this reference render the claimed structure
obvious. It is clear to us from the appellant’s disclosure
that the term “longitudinal axis” should be interpreted as
being that axis of the paw which is in the direction of its
movement, that is, diagonally upward as shown in Figures 8-10
(see specification, page 13). This also is in keeping with
what we believe one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand to be the common definition of the term. Nordgren
discloses paws whose structure and operation have much in
common with the appellant’s invention. Nordgren provides no
description of the distal ends of the paws in detail. In view
of this, and from an inspection of the drawings, it is our
view that it cannot be concluded that the distal end of each
of the paws is oblique to the “longitudinal axis” of the paw,
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned (In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007