Appeal No. 1998-0159
Application 08/410,029
relevance of the ‘183 patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,183). The
Examiner is correct that this patent is irrelevant because it
was not cited as part of the rejection. However, since
Appellants have seen fit to compare ‘183 to the claimed
invention, we feel it in order to note our own observations.
Ribs 40 of ‘183 accomplish the same resistance to rotational
displacement as Appellants’ polygonal shape. Although there
are differences between the two, we note these differences to
be akin to changing from a Phillips head tool to an Allen head
tool for improvement in rotational resistance. We note also
that ‘183 teaches overmold to resist axial forces, as in the
instant invention. Furthermore, regarding claim 9, we note
that “at least one flat side thereon” is akin to the
rotational resistance provided by the common knob placed on a
shaft, be it a kitchen stove, electronic equipment, or other
appliance.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007