Appeal No. 97-1147
Application 08/349,087
centrifugal clutch of Kagiyama of the nature urged by the
examiner in the rejection before us on appeal so as to arrive
at the clutch assembly defined in appellants' independent
claims 4 and 7. This
being the case, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings
of Kagiyama.
The examiner's reliance on and citation of Nerwin v.
Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (Bd.Pat.Int. 1969), which according
to
the examiner held that "constructing a formerly integral
structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the
art," appears to us to be misplaced. We find no such "holding"
in Nerwin v. Erlichman. The only statement in that case which we
think may be referred to by the examiner is one which indicates
that
"[t]he mere fact that a given structure is integral does not
preclude its consisting of various elements."
This statement, in our view, is a construction of the term
"integral," and does not appear to stand for the proposition the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007