Appeal No. 96-0280
Application 08/032,241
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained. We find that there are
differences between the claimed device and Stiepel, and that the
modifications necessary to Stiepel to meet the claims have not
been established as obvious.
Contrary to the position of the examiner, the edges of slots
3f of shroud 3 of Stiepel, which shroud the examiner considers as
the stationary or static housing member of claims 1 and 4, are not
flanges in that they clearly do not extend out at essentially
right angles to the surface of the shroud. Nor do the edges act
as flanges by strengthening the shroud or housing 3, or by acting
as a means of attaching the shroud to another part. These edges
clearly do not provide the prior function. With respect to the
latter function, the edges of mated slots 3f in the shells 3a and
3b of the shroud 3 merely form apertures through which screws 50a
and 50b pass. These screws fixedly couple arms 8a and 8b of
support member 8 (Figure 5A) to couplings 27 and 28 of mounting
member 21 (Figure 2).
The claims define a flange portion or flange at the base of a
housing. Housing 3 of Stiepel is a sphere. As such, it has no
base. Such being the case, it would not have been obvious to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007