Appeal No. 1997-3974
Application No. 08/541,254
appellant that it does.
We find appellant’s use of “closely receives” [page 5]
and “not closely received” [page 7] to be compelling. We can
see no reason why the specification would emphasize the fact
that transducers are not closely received in the hole 192
unless it was intended to convey the fact that a loose fit was
desired rather than a tight or close fit. The word “loose”
simply means not tight fitting, and we find that the
disclosure of not closely received means not tight fitted
which implies that the fit is loose.
For all the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 12-14 and 16-18 as being
based upon an inadequate written description of the invention
under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
We now consider the rejections of the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007