Appeal No. 98-2413
Application 08/763,549
We will likewise not sustain the examiner’s rejec-
tion of claims 11 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatent- able over Deacon in view of Swain. If it is the
examiner’s position (answer, page 4) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select only the
smooth surface centering pin (25) of Swain as a replacement
for the threaded stud (13) of Deacon, it is again our opinion
that the examiner's modification of Deacon is based on the
hindsight benefit of appellant's own teachings and not on
anything fairly suggested by the applied references. In
discussing the specially developed gripper seen in Figure 2 of
the patent, Swain (col. 5, line 58, to col. 6, line 3) empha-
sizes the functioning of the tapered centering pin (25) in
slightly spreading the metal bush (14) so as to enhance and
make firmer the threaded connection between the threads (13)
of the socket part (11) and the threads (24) of the
plastic sleeve (23) of the gripper. Thus, it would appear to
us
that Swain would been suggestive to one of ordinary skill in
the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007