Appeal No. 98-0005
Application No. 08/613,808
rotated, the work piece will not be pressed against the base
plate (page 2, lines 102-112).
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive
in either Maley or Andrew which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the Maley apparatus in the manner
proposed by the examiner. To follow the teachings of Andrew’s
first embodiment would lead the artisan to place parallel
teeth on a cam surface and press the work piece into contact
with the base plate by use of the threads on the pivot bolt.
To follow the teachings of the second embodiment would result
in a system in which the work piece is not pressed against the
base plate.
Consideration of the other two references cited against
claim 1 does not alleviate the shortcomings in Maley and
Andrew. Allen discloses a system in which index pins are
provided for aligning the work piece on the base plate prior
to actuating a set of clamps, and Woodman discloses cams
operated by handles. Incorporation of these features into the
Maley device still would not meet all the terms of claim 1.
The same can be said for the Boggs and Cardner references
cited against dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007