Appeal No. 97-4078
Application No. 08/232,947
sunvisor, each of said nubs having a differential camming surface preferentially facilitating
sliding of said articles out of position between said nubs over sliding into position between
said nubs." The Examiner has not addressed this limitation in the rejection of claim 1 nor
in the argument section of the examiner's answer. Appellant argues that Gaudino does not
address the problem solved by appellant. (See brief at page 8 and page 6.) The clip is
"more or less permanently mounted" and "readily opened again and again so as to
repeatedly insert and remove, e.g. sunglasses, without dislodging the clip. . . there is no
preferential camming of the nubs to facilitate insertion [sic, removal] , but not removal [sic,
insertion] as in applicant's device." (See brief at page 8). A review of the Gaudino patent
shows merely uniform nubs which do not contain differential camming surfaces
preferentially facilitating sliding articles out of position as required by the language of claim
1. Furthermore, the Examiner has not provided a line of reasoning why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teaching
of Gaudino to have the differential camming surfaces rather than the uniform camming
surfaces as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of Gaudino.
Appellant argues throughout the brief that the Gaudino patent does not teach a
"lever extending from the jaws" and neither does the Carter-Mann patent. (See brief at
page 6-10.) We agree, but note that Gaudino discloses extensions of flat members, 12
and 14, which extend beyond the web member, 16, which acts as a fulcrum "so that the
visor clip 10 may be easily and with facility applied to a vehicle sun visor." (See Gaudino,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007