Appeal No. 96-0141
Application No. 08/084,097
examiner has not particularly identified any suggestion,
teaching or motivation to combine the applied references in
the manner proposed (see the Answer, pages 8-9). The examiner
has not identified any disclosure or suggestion in the applied
prior art which is directed to composite pointers, much less 2
composite pointers needing adhesives (Linne teaches avoiding
the use of adhesives by integral molding, see the Answer,
sentence bridging pages 8-9).
The process of making a pointer as set forth in appealed
claim 5 would not have been prima facie obvious even if the
applied prior art was combined in the manner proposed by the
examiner. The examiner does not identify any reference which
discloses or suggests the use of metal powder and resin in
only a part of any pointer, much less an integral pointer, to
act as a balancing weight (see the specification, page 3,
Examined Japanese Utility Model Laid-Open No. SHO 60-143,366).
Furthermore, the examiner’s assumption that metal powder can
2The examiner generally refers to "composite pointers" in
relation to Pasco (Answer, pages 3 and 4) but Pasco merely
forms a pointer by molding with subsequent insertion of a
weight or "mass" or molds the pointer "around" the weight or
"mass" as it is held in place (Pasco, column 3, lines 11-14).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007