Appeal No. 1997-0174 Page 10
Application No. 08/302,207
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness issues
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
All the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in this appeal
are founded on the examiner's determination (answer, p. 6)
that
in view of Schirm, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to associate a Geneva drive
with the valve drive structure of the CYCLE-JET [the
Admitted Prior Art] sequencing valve as such is a
conventional valve drive structure for sequencing valves
(pg. 1 col. 2 lns. 13-27) that provides positive
indexing.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 8-12) that the above-
noted determination of obviousness by the examiner is
improper. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the
examiner has not provided any motivation, absent the use of
impermissible hindsight, as to why one skilled in the art
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007