Appeal No. 1997-2818
Application No. 08/322,370
integral with the reaction dolly. In addition, the Rydstrom
patent lacks a teaching of a fluid actuated cylinder for
displacing a counter-piece between an active position and a
rest position. Instead, Rydstrom discloses a bucking bar to
absorb the impacts of the rivet-upsetting hammer.
Thus, even if it would have been obvious to replace
Stoewer’s riveting tool with Rydstrom’s riveting tool, the
result would not meet the terms of claims 1 and 9. To do so,
it would be necessary to make a modification of the initial
modification (i.e., the combined teachings of Stoewer and
Rydstrom). The examiner, however, has not stated why it would
have been obvious to further modify the riveting tool to
provide a reaction dolly, a counter-piece integral with that
dolly and a fluid actuated cylinder for displacing the
integrally connected counter-piece between the active and rest
positions as defined in the independent claims on appeal.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that there is any problem
with the discharge of chips in Stoewer’s drilling operation to
warrant the provision of “vents” in one of Stoewer’s sheet-
holding devices.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007