Appeal No. 2000-0760
Application No. 08/831,198
of the portions 54 of Yanko's ring 32 is to hold the "blocks"
36 in position (i.e., prevent them from rotating about the
axes of holes 94), appellant's purported elimination of these
portions 54 would not eliminate the function they serve,
because appellant's apparatus also performs that function.
Thus, applying the above-quoted language from In re Larson,
elimination of portions 54 of Yanko's ring would not have been
"a matter of obvious choice."
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2, and of claims 3 to
5 and 7 dependent thereon, will not be sustained. Likewise,
the rejection of claim 12, which also recites individual drive
blocks, will not be sustained for the same reasons as claim 2.
Rejection (2)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 2. Its rejection will not
be
sustained since Göbel does not overcome the above-discussed
deficiency of Yanko.
Claim 8 does not recite any drive blocks, but does claim
in lines 5 to 9:
one retainer plate extends radially
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007