Appeal No. 1999-1821 Page 10
Application No. 08/725,335
circumstances is not sufficient. [Citations
omitted.] If, however, the disclosure is sufficient
to show that the natural result flowing from the
operation as taught would result in the performance
of the questioned function, it seems to be well
settled that the disclosure should be regarded as
sufficient.
Here, the examiner's determination that Johnston's device
would provide a substantially uniform force distribution
between the mortise a and the tenon b is simply speculative.
Thus, Johnston does not meet the particular limitation in
claim 32 requiring a substantially uniform force distribution
between the first and second connectable member means. In
light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 32, as well as claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 23, 27, 33-36 and
39-43 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 7,
24-26 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed since the
above-noted limitation of parent claim 32 is neither taught by
Johnston for the reasons set forth above, nor would it have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007