Appeal No. 97-1330
Application 08/345,813
Brief (Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the
Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not attempted to
provide a motivation to combine the references (Br5): "He has
merely taken bits and pieces from two separate references
using Appellant's disclosure as a guide in an attempt to
arrive at the present invention without even attempting to
show motivation from the prior art as to why anyone of
ordinary skill would make such modifications." Appellant
further argues that '461 and Perrot are in conflict with one
another for three reasons (Br6-7):
First, '461 teaches an added element which is held on the
frame in a detachable manner (i.e., cover 14 may be
opened and closed), whereas the added element in Perrot
is not detachable (i.e., bridge 2 is permanently held on
the frame 1 by a rivet 34; see col. 6, lines 11-12).
Second, '461 teaches a fixation means (i.e., lock member
18) which rotates, whereas Perrot's fixation means (i.e.,
stud 34) does not rotate. Finally, Perrot's fixation
means remains at a constant height in relation to the
frame, whereas the fixation means of '461 does not.
The Examiner's statement of motivation (EA3) is
accurately summarized by Appellant at (c)(1) and (c)(2) at
RBr1. Basically, the Examiner states that the shoulder means
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007