Appeal No. 99-2104 Page 7
Application No. 08/759,983
axial load, which is the examiner’s position on page 4 of the
Answer, this position is an inaccurate and improper
interpretation of the parts of the reference device and its
operation. Likewise, considering locking projection 30 to be
the required stop means also is flawed reasoning.
We therefore conclude that the subject matter recited in
claim 29 is not anticipated by La Torre, and we will not
sustain the rejection of this claim or, it follows, of claims
15, 16, 18, 20-22 and 30, which depend therefrom.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 17 has been rejected as being unpatentable over
La Torre. We have explained above that the La Torre rivet
structure fails to disclose the subject matter required by
claim 29, from which claim 17 ultimately depends. Considering
this reference in the context of Section 103 leads us to 2
conclude that it fails to establish a prima facie case of
2A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings of the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007