Appeal No. 1999-0519
Application 08/728,224
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based on Hamada.
As a further commentary, we also note that we share
appellant’s view (brief, pages 6 and 7) that it would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the
teachings of Hamada, to merely optimize the weight of the mass
(28) in Hamada to achieve the results sought by appellant, or
to derive a weight adjustment constant k which equals 31.14
Newtons. There is simply no guidance whatsoever in Hamada for
such selec- tions to be made or derived therefrom. Thus, the
examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on Hamada will likewise not be sustained.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007