Appeal No. 98-1350
Application No. 08/607,549
Absent the disclosure of the present application, it is our
opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated by the collective teachings of the applied Storm and
Shell patents to use the specialized connector assembly of Shell
in Storm in the manner urged by the examiner so as to arrive at
the subject matter set forth in appellants’ claims 1, 2, 7
through 13, 15 through 17, 19 through 27 and 29 on appeal. Thus,
the examiner's rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Storm and Shell will not be sustained.
Looking next at the examiner’s rejection of claims 16
through 18, 21, 22, 25 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over LeVine in view of Anthon, we share appellants’
view as expressed on page 11 of the brief that the examiner has
inappropriately attempted to read the extension arm (20) of the
clamping portion (18) of Anthon as being part of the support
means (70) of Figure 8 and also as being the projecting section
of the blade holding assembly which must cooperate with the
support means. Moreover, we agree with appellants that a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007