Appeal No. 1999-1975 Page 6
Application No. 08/963,460
retaining mounting plate] with that of Eremenko [sic,
Yeremenko] so as to revolvably retain the ball bearing.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 5) that in Yeremenko's
vehicle, there is "no provision for the body 1 to revolve
about the vertical axis of the ball." We view this argument
as asserting that Yeremenko's vehicle, shown in Figure 5, is
not capable of traveling consistent with the claimed
functional language.
Yeremenko teaches (translation, p. 3) that wheel 7
displays resistance to the displacement of the body 1 in a
transverse direction and allows itself to be displaced in a
longitudinal direction. From this teaching of Yeremenko, we
conclude that the examiner's determination that Yeremenko's
vehicle, shown in Figure 5, is "capable of traveling
consistent with the claimed functional language" is incorrect.
Thus, even if it were obvious to have modified Yeremenko by
the teachings of Emmert as set forth above, one would not
arrive at the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007