Appeal No. 1999-0616
Application 08/443,152
1967). The examiner’s failure to advance any factual basis
whatsoever to support his conclusion that it would have been
obvious to rearrange certain parts of Moser to arrive at the
combination set forth in appellants’ claims constitutes a
first reason necessitating reversal of the standing § 103
rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, the Moser reference is ambiguous. In this
regard, the specification of Moser describes the bearing means
38 as being connected to the bucket and having a centrally
located bore for accepting the retaining pin 40 in a pivotal
relationship
(column 2, line 21-24). One would reasonably infer from this
that the retaining pin is secured to the bracket 20 and that
the bearing means is secured to the bucket 32. However, 3
Figure 1 appears to show the retaining pin as being secured at
its right hand end to the bucket, extending through an
unidentified bore in the bracket 20, and being retained on the
3This inference is buttressed by claim 1 of Moser, which
expressly calls for “bearing means secured to the bucket and
defining a bore, and a retaining pin member secured to the
bracket and accepted in said bore” (emphasis added).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007