Appeal No. 99-0650
Application 08/726,978
light of the foregoing, we will sustain the standing § 102
rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated by French ‘899.
Independent claim 7 is directed to the Figure 5
embodiment of appellants’ invention and calls for resilient
means in the form of “a wave spring . . . for supporting the
bolt.” The examiner acknowledges that French ‘899 lacks a
wave spring, but has taken the position that “Cramer teaches
the use of a wave spring 10 in a joint for the purpose of
providing a device for absorbing differences in tolerance
between a shaft and an opening” (second office action, page
3). Based on these teachings, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify the device of French ‘899
as taught by Cramer for the purpose of absorbing differences
in tolerance between the shaft and an opening” (second office
action, page 3).
Initially, it is not clear to us precisely how the
examiner proposes to modify the device of French ‘899 in view
of Cramer. Specifically, it is not clear whether the examiner
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior
art.”); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661
(CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be presented to the Board).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007