Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
with regard to the other references, the rejection of claim 27
will not be sustained. Our discussion of rejection (3) will
therefore be limited to claim 4.
The examiner’s position is summarized in the following
quotation from page 7 of the answer (original emphasis):
Both Main devices show the use of a spring
biased pin [46 of Main '025] instead of a
ball, however it is well known in the ratchet
wrench art, as clearly evidenced by Gummow,
that a spring biased ball can also be used in
exactly the same manner for exactly the same
purpose. Thus one skilled in the art would
find it obvious to use either a pin or ball,
as desired, to function as a detent mechanism
for a ratchet pawl. The second point is that
the placement of the spring and ball is on
the pawl and not on the body of the tool,
however this is merely an obvious reversal of
position of the elements without any change
in the structure or function of these
elements and one skilled in the art would
find it obvious to make such a reversal of
position without effecting [sic: affecting]
the overall function of the wrench.
We do not consider this position to be well taken.
Gummow discloses a simple ball-type detent 152 which merely
serves to retain the pawl 146 in whatever position it is turned
to by selector 118 (col. 5, lines 42 to 65). The spring member
46 of Main '025, on the other hand, acts as an over-center switch
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007