Appeal No. 98-1960
Application No. 08/673,921
The examiner (answer, page 3) refers to the movable cam 9
of Ohshima as a movable detent, and the groove 6c as a second
abutment in the detent. However, groove 6c is disposed in the
fixed cam 6, not the movable cam 9. Thus, groove 6c is not a
second abutment in the detent, as pointed out by appellant
(brief, page 7). It follows that, as to the added limitation
of claim 2, the applied prior art would not have been
suggestive thereof. Additionally, we note that the movable
cam 9 (detent) of Ohshima is not rotatable relative to the
shaft 8, whereas a limitation of appellant’s independent claim
1 requires the detent to be rotatable about the shaft. The
combined teachings of Neale and Ohshima, therefore, would not
have suggested the claimed invention to one having ordinary
skill in the art.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Neale; and
reversed the rejection of claims 2 through 13 and 20
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Neale in view of Ohshima.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007