Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
Appellants’ invention pertains to a pallet for supporting an armature and maintaining
it in a single angular orientation during manufacture. Claims 9 and 12, copies of which are
found in Appendix A to appellants’ brief, are illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in support of rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Smolen 2,885,165 May 5, 1959
Eckart et al. (Eckart) 4,911,606 Mar. 27, 1990
Saunders 5,061,008 Oct. 29, 1991
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eckart
in view of Smolen.
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Eckart in view of Smolen and further in view of Saunders.
Reference is made to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 22) and to the examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 23) for the respective positions of appellants and the examiner with
respect to the merits of these rejections.
The § 103 rejection of claim 9
The only limitation of claim 9 argued by appellants as patentably distinguishing over
the combination of Eckart in view of Smolen is the means plus function limitation calling for
“means for maintaining said armature in a single angular orientation.” The examiner’s
position is that “in Eckart et al belt 94 when not driven by the motor holds the armature in a
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007