Appeal No. 1997-1332
Application 08/217,079
resilently retained in each case member even when the case
members are separated from one another.
The combined teachings and suggestions of the six references
relied upon by the examiner in the initially stated rejection
would not have led the artisan to the claimed subject matter.
The examiner has provided little reasoning to persuade us that
the artisan would have found it obvious to have combined the
teachings of the references to yield the features of the above
quoted material of each independent claim on appeal.
The principal references to Konno and Heilmann appear to be
presumptively combined by the examiner. From our study of each
of them, we find first that Konno's ferrite members 4 and 5
appear to be fixedly retained within their respective cover
portions 13, 14 with no free movability therewithin. On the
other hand, Heilmann's inductive clip-on pulse pick-up device
permits the assembled ferrite members 18 and 19, which are
adhesively attached to their respective synthetic resin holders
20 and 21, to move freely within each of the handle portions of
the device in Figure 1 by means of the bias spring means 24, 25
and the projections 22 which allow the assembled holders 20, 21
to move somewhat freely within the jaw shells 10 and 11. We are
unpersuaded by the examiner's reasons for utilizing the teachings
of Heilmann in the device of Konno and we can find none of our
own from the teachings and suggestions of both references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007