Appeal No. 98-2163
Application No. 08/537,673
embodiment of Fig. 4.
There is simply nothing in the combined teachings of
Harsch and the German publication which would fairly suggest
incorporating the elastic coupling taught by the German
publication into the device of Harsch. Moreover, even if the
German publication's elastic coupling were incorporated into
the device of Harsch, the claimed invention would not result.
That is, the resulting structure would not prevent pivotal
movement of the double-acting hydraulic cylinder relative to
the holder when the plurality of screws are tightened as
expressly required by each of the independent claims on
appeal.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-18 and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings
of Harsch and the German publication is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007