Appeal No. 97-0986
Application 08/430,580
sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claim 9.
The § 103 rejection of claim 2 and 12
Turning to the standing § 103 rejection of claim 2 and 12, each of these claims calls
for a blade extending from one of the support assemblies toward the other support
assembly, with the blade being sufficiently thin and so located that it is received within an
armature core slot to maintain angular orientation of an armature loaded onto the pallet.
The examiner has taken the position (answer, page 5) that it would have been obvious to
employ a blade on one of the support assemblies of Eckart in view of Saunders’ teaching
at blade 56 in order to locate the armature at a desired annular position, and that the
Eckart device, as modified, would correspond to the subject matter of claims 2 and 12.
As a threshold issue, appellants argue that Saunders is nonanalogous art. This
argument is well taken. Saunders pertains to a fixture for selectively and reproducibly
positioning and orienting a nock with respect to the lead feather of an arrow.
Notwithstanding the examiner’s view to the contrary, we agree with appellants that
Saunders is not in the same field of endeavor as appellants’ invention, and is not
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which appellants were involved, namely, the
problem of maintaining the angular orientation of an armature supported on a pallet during
manufacture. This constitutes a first reason necessitating reversal of the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2 and 12.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007