Appeal No. 1997-2215
Application 08/332,058
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a) and (e) based on the Goddard and Alligood
references, we again point out that the examiner has not made
findings of fact specifically pointing out which features of
Goddard and Alligood are said to anticipate the various
members called for in claim 1. Both of these references show
aperture masking plates 17, 19 as part of an integral, one
piece system with pivots 21 and 23 connected by rigid links.
In Goddard, two living hinges 27 and 29 permit the masking
plates to move from one overcenter position to the other. In
Alligood, a diamond-shaped flexible hinge is provided to allow
movement from one overcenter position to the other. The
masking blade assemblage 15 of either reference simply does
not comprise enough members to satisfy the claim 1
requirements of an urging member, stopper members, an
operation member, a switching member and a connecting member.
We note that in the examiner's analysis of these references
several of the structures of the blade assembly 15 are relied
on duplicatively to be the required members. The examiner's
analysis might have some validity if these various features of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007