Appeal No. 1996-3828 Page 11
Application No. 08/304,465
(answer, p. 3), the claimed "support arm" is readable on
Irwin's baffle holder 18 and the claimed "support head" is
readable on Irwin's support arm 17. In addition, we note that
the claimed "linkage means" is readable on Irwin's arms 11 and
50 which are connected to Irwin's support arm 17 (i.e., the
claimed support head) so that the support arm 17 can be
displaced from a retracted position to an advanced position.
With regard to the above-noted difference between claim 8
and Irwin, the examiner determined (final rejection, pp. 2-3)
that
[i]t would have been obvious to a person skilled in the
art at the time the invention was made to make the arm
and baffle head separable since Rowe teaches in the
abstract that separable 'cartridges' of the neck ring
mold segments would have been desirable to minimize
downtime of an I.S. machine section in the event that the
segments would need to be replaced.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5-7) that the "means for
releasably securing said support arm to said support head"
limitation of claim 8 is not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art. We agree. In our view, the only
suggestion for modifying Irwin in the manner necessary to meet
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007