Appeal No. 1997-1358
Application 07/874,651
Schnittker and Bawa. Although appellants challenge the
propriety of the examiner’s use of design choice in rejecting
these claims, the examiner simply reiterates this position.
With respect to the general arguments made by
appellants with respect to independent claim 24 [brief, pages
11-15], we agree with appellants that the examiner has failed
to make a persuasive case that the collective teachings of
Schnittker and Bawa would have led to the invention as recited
in claim 24. There is no suggestion in these references that
Bawa’s O-ring should be added to Schnittker’s connector in the
precise manner recited in claim 24. We also agree with
appellants that the examiner has improperly relied on design
choice as a basis to ignore the argued differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art.
Appellants also make a specific argument with respect
to claim 24 regarding the lack of a teaching of the claimed
axial extent of the free ends of the fingers of the dual
finger member. The examiner has ignored this argument, and we
agree with appellants that the dual finger member shown in
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007