Appeal No. 98-0676
Application No. 08/308,592
40,41, said first and second group of levers appears
to
enclose a corrugated pipe 4 by more than 180
degrees, a group of conveying levers 6 . . . .
[Final rejection, page 5.]
Thereafter, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to (1) provide the tube slotting device of Hopf with a
duct or guide in view of the teachings of Maroschak and (2)
substitute in Hopf, as modified by Maroschak, for the first
and second groups of holding and centering "levers" and
conveying "levers," the holding and pivoting levers as taught
by Hoffman in Figs. 1 and 7-10. As to the provision of "at
least one stop lever" in independent claim 1, the final
rejection states that
the stop lever(s) is disclosed as another holding
lever. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the
ordinary artisan at the time of the instant
invention to provide the modified device of Hopf
with at least one stop (holding) lever in order to
provide a better held and centered support for the
front end of the pipe while the pipe is being
conveyed and since it has been held that mere
duplication of the essential working parts of a
device involves only routine skill in the art.
[Page 6, citation omitted.]
We will not support the examiner's position. We agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious to provide
the tube slotting device of Hopf with a duct or guide in view
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007