Appeal No. 1998-1802
Application 08/245,786
In this case, the rule is incorrectly applied because the
location of parts is not an irrelevant design choice. It is
precisely the location of the various parts of the claimed
invention which achieves the desirable speed advantages
described in appellants’ specification. The examiner must
provide a record to support the obviousness of the claimed
invention. Such record is lacking here.
In summary, the rejection of independent claims 1 and
11 based on the teachings of Lange and Capozzi is not
sustained. Therefore, Lange and Capozzi alone do not support
the rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 10 and 12-14 either.
Although dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected on
the collective teachings of Lange, Capozzi, Gusefski and
Aichelmann, the additional teachings of Gusefski and
Aichelmann do not overcome the deficiencies of Lange discussed
above. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of any of
claims 1-20 based on the prior art applied by the examiner.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-
20 is reversed.
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007