Appeal No. 1997-0500
Application 08/404,704
make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner
observes that “Leone suggests the limitations of claim 1,
except for the use of a screw-type connection instead of the
disclosed (but not claimed) 'finger' means. Leone does
provide a bezel which may be removed from the gauge, and a
gauge which may be removed by hand following the removal of
the bezel” [final rejection, page 2]. Wetterhorn teaches use
of a bayonet ring as a bezel retaining means. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
replace the screw-type fastening means of Leone with the
bayonet fastener of Wetterhorn [id.].
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to
conduct a fact-intensive comparison between the claimed
invention and the applied prior art so that the examiner’s
rejection is deficient as a matter of law [brief, page 8].
Appellants also argue that a fact-intensive analysis of Leone
shows that Leone lacks any teaching or suggestion that the
bezel be used to extract the gauge from the housing.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007