Appeal No. 1996-1049
Application No. 08/238,681
The examiner argues that Harrison clearly shows a
cylindrical fastener in figures 2 and 4 and, therefore,
discloses a cylindrical bore (answer, page 5). Harrison,
however, states that “[t]he bottom lugs 34 are positioned out
of vertical alignment with respect to the upper lock lugs 32
and are bisected by a vertical plane bisecting the space
between adjacent ones of the upper lock lugs 32 as will be
apparent from inspection of FIG. 4. The upper lock lugs 32
extend transversely with respect to the seat in a horizontal
manner at an elevation above the elevation of the lower
portion of the bed plate ...” (col. 3, lines 58-65). This
disclosure indicates that the upper and lower lock lugs are
flat rather than arcuate and, therefore, provides no
indication that the bore is cylindrical. Figure 2 shows these
same upper and lower lock lugs (32 and 34).
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of appellant’s claimed invention. We therefore
reverse the examiner’s rejection.
REMAND
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007