Appeal No. 98-2419
Application No. 08/675,193
the examiner argues on page 5 of the answer, we do not
consider that this disclosure would have taught or suggested
to one of ordinary skill that such teeth be provided on the
Hough tool, because the tools of Hough and Wickbergh grip in
different ways. Thus, the tool of Hough is made of
elastomeric material and (as noted above) grips the base 21 by
deformation of that material, rather than by biting into the
metal of the base in the manner that Wickbergh’s teeth 5 would
bite into the metal of the screw head. Appellants allude to
this difference in their argument that "Wickbergh teaches how
to prevent slipping between two relatively ‘hard’ members and
both of the members of Hough are not ‘hard’" (brief, page 8).
Accordingly, we consider that the examiner’s rejection was the
result of impermissible hindsight based on knowledge gleaned
from appellants’ disclosure, rather than on knowledge within
the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention
was made.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, dependent on claim
7, will likewise not be sustained; also, since the Grinnell
reference does not supply the deficiencies of the combination
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007