Appeal No. 1997-1812
Application 08/055,382
rejection, page 3) that as to these differences, the beam 15
or 16 of Coffey is “functionally equivalent” to the claimed
construction.
With respect to the subject matter of claims 4, 12, 14,
and 19, the examiner’s contention that the claimed adjustment
means are “just obvious design choices” is without foundation
in the absence of evidence supporting such contention. We
note that the means in question are for the express purpose of
fine tuning
the turntable relative to its supporting structure. See, for
example, page 10, lines 2-6, and page 11, line 36 through page
12, line 5, of appellant’s specification. Thus, they are not
merely a matter of obvious design choice solving no stated
problem. Compare, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7,
9 (CCPA 1975). The Stevens case cited on page 3 of the final 7
rejection and again on page 5 of the answer in support the
examiner’s position is noted. In Stevens, the examiner cited
7 That is, In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA
1954)
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007