Appeal No. 98-0005
Application No. 08/613,808
The examiner points out that the basic structure of the
claimed clamping system is disclosed by Maley, except for
several features, including the angled grooves limitation
quoted above. It is the examiner’s position, however, that
such angled grooves are taught by Andrew, and it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to so modify
the Maley structure in this manner. We do not agree.
While Maley teaches securing a work piece to a base plate
in a manner that presses it against the surface of the base
plate, it does so in a manner quite different from the claimed
system. Whereas the claim calls for a pivot pin mounted on a
support block and an arm having a cam surface mounted on the
support block for pivoting movement about the pivot, in Maley
the pivot pin (e) protrudes through the support block (f), but
is mounted on the base plate (a). It then follows that the
arm in the Maley device also is not mounted on the support
block, as is recited in the appellant’s claims. Claim 1 also
requires that the cam surface that presses the work piece into
contact with the base plate be mounted on the arm, but in
Maley it is mounted on the support plate. Therefore, the cam
surface does not act directly upon the work piece, and there
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007