Appeal No. 1997-0811
Application No. 08/240,554
notes that the applied prior art does not disclose the claimed
cam and link mechanism. The examiner asserts that the claimed
cam and
link mechanism would have been an obvious design choice over
the screw mechanism taught by Heilig.
Appellants point to several features of independent
claim 6 which they allege are not taught or suggested by the
combination of Heilig and Schoolman. Among these features are
the first operation means and the first slide means which
includes a cam and a link [brief, page 16]. Appellants argue
that the examiner’s bare assertion that something is a design
choice is insufficient to establish obviousness within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner simply reiterates
the obviousness of the design choice.
We again agree with the position taken by appellants.
In addition to points discussed above with respect to claim 1
which are also relevant to claim 6, we also agree with
appellants that the examiner has not provided a factual record
to support the position that a cam and link mechanism as
recited in claim 6 would have been obvious to the artisan in
view of the applied prior art. The fact that cam and link
mechanisms were known in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007