Appeal No. 1998-1964 Page 5
Application No. 08/518,784
In the brief (pp. 4-6), the appellant argues that the
rejection set forth by the examiner is improper for the
following three reasons.
1. Use of the rivet connection described by Powell with
the Engman et al. clamp would not result in the claimed
invention.
2. Use of the Powell rivet connect to [sic, to connect]
the clamp members 12 and 14 of Engman et al. would change
the principle of operation of the clamp disclosed by
Engman et al.
3. One having ordinary skill in the art would not be
[sic, have been] motivated to use a rivet connection with
the clamp of Engman et al. to prevent separation of the
parts.
We agree with reasons 2 and 3 above. We see no evidence, as
shown by some objective teaching in the applied prior art or
by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art, that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have provided
Engman's clamp with the claimed pivot attachment between the
yoke and the U-bolt/elongate member (i.e., the pin 32).
Instead, it appears to us that the examiner relied on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007