Appeal No. 95-2930
Application No. 08/043,953
Specifically, the examiner states (Answer, page 3) that:
The Haidle patent accomplishes the removal of the
article by moving the mandrel and article, not just
the article as presently claimed.
The examiner then goes on to conclude (Answer, page 3) that:
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to utilize any of the conventional
circumferential movements to remove the article from
the mandrel, because the Haidle patent discloses the
electroforming of an article on a mandrel and the
removal of the article by a functionally equivalent
circumferential movement.
However, the examiner’s conclusion is unsupported by facts.
On this record, the examiner has not explained how waveguide
26 (article) can be rotated with respect to a stationary
mandrel so as to create an axial movement of the waveguide 26.
The examiner also has not explained why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to employ the device of
the type described in the Haidle reference in the manner
proposed by the examiner. The examiner simply has not carried
his or her burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007