Appeal No. 1997-2818
Application No. 08/322,370
teachings of Gutnik would have made it obvious to provide
chip-discharging vents in one of Stoewer’s sheet-holding
devices.
Although we cannot accept several arguments made by
appellants in their briefs, we nevertheless cannot sustain2
the § 103 rejection of the appealed claims. Both of the
independent claims 1 and 9 recite that the counter-piece is
integral with a reaction dolly (52) (described as “a mass of
high inertia” on page 1 of appellants’ specification) as well
as reciting a means including a fluid actuated cylinder (53)
for displacing the counter-piece between an active position
and a rest position.
The Rydstrom patent does not disclose such a reaction
dolly, let alone a riveting tool in which the counter-piece is
2For example, appellants argue on page 8 of the main
brief that “indeed there is no teaching in any of the prior
art concerning percussion riveting in any context”
(emphasis added). However, the discussion of the admitted
prior art on page 1 of appellants’ specification states
that “deformation of the rivet can be effected by hammering
or by pressing” and that “[i]n the case of hammering, a
mass driven at a certain speed repeatedly strikes the end
of the rivet . . .” Furthermore, it appears from page 3 of
the reply brief that appellants do not take issue with the
examiner’s position that Rydstrom discloses a percussion
hammer and counter-piece.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007