Appeal No. 1997-2818
Application No. 08/322,370
Bonomi et al. (Bonomi) 4,885,836 Dec. 12, 1989
Rydstrom et al. 4,919,321 Apr. 24, 1990
(Rydstrom)
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12 and 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stoewer in
view of Rydstrom, Bonomi and Gutnik. According to the
examiner’s findings, Stoewer differs from appellants’ claimed
invention in the following respects:
Stoewer . . . lacks the specific type of
riveting tools including a percussion riveting
hammer and an appropriate cooperating
counterpiece for such a riveting operation.
Stoewer also lacks a first means provided on
each of the first and second frames for
displacing its respective one of the sheet-
holding devices towards and against the other
sheet-holding device, sensor means provided on
each sheet-holding device, and vents in one of
the sheet-holding devices for discharging chips.
[emphasis in original; answer, page 6.]
The examiner concludes, however, that the teachings of
Rydstrom would have made it obvious to employ a riveting
hammer as the riveting tool in Stoewer’s apparatus, that the
teachings of Bonomi would have made it obvious to provide
Stoewer’s apparatus with a sensor corresponding to appellants’
claimed sensor means and further with a force applying device
corresponding to appellants’ claimed first means, and that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007