Appeal No. 97-2645
Application 08/448,638
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respec-
tive positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determination
that the examiner’s rejection will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
Even if, as has been urged by the examiner, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make
the one-piece, unitary pressure plate (1) of Japanese ‘620 in
multiple pieces, we share appellants’ view (brief, pages 17-
18) that there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive in the
applied Japanese reference, or otherwise specified by the
examiner, which would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the pressure plate of Japanese ‘620 to be in the
particular multi-piece form specified in claim 1 on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007