Appeal No. 96-1608
Application 08/220,462
requirement in claims 9 and 10 that the socket portion include
a single semicircular recess formed in the single opening for
receiving a section of a link shaft to facilitate a natural
multidirectional movement with a primary movement in a single
direction, the examiner tacitly acknowledges that Cotey's
sockets do not include such recesses. Nonetheless, the
examiner submits that "Deichmann clearly discloses such a
recess for the socket to allow the shaft portion #14 of the
link to move therein to define the movement of the link as in
appellant's structure" (answer, page 5).
The only suggestion for this highly selective combination
of articulated joint features disclosed by Deichmann and Cotey
stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's
own teachings. The use of such hindsight knowledge to support
a conclusion of obviousness is, of course, impermissible.
Since Rapata and Refabert do not cure this shortcoming in the
examiner's evidence of obviousness, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 9 and 10, or of
claims 3, 7, 12 and 14 through 16 which depend therefrom.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007