Appeal No. 1999-1168 Page 6
Application No. 08/876,191
required structure, and even if combined with Sharp would not provide the claimed subject
matter.
The locking mechanism disclosed in Nickipuck ‘107 operates differently than those
of the other three Nickipuck references in that it does not utilize a detent in the ratchet
head. Instead, locking of the handle to the ratchet head is accomplished by the camming
action of a pair of balls in a transverse bore which are pressed against a smooth surface in
the bore in the side of the ratchet head by the action of a sliding control bar (see Figures 2
and 3). This reference thus fails to disclose the required transverse stem. As shown in
some of the embodiments, the balls can be spring-biased apart. Interestingly, in this
system, the uppermost ball (as shown) is maintained in contact with the sliding control bar,
even when in the unlocked position (see Figure 7, for example). Nevertheless, the
absence of the transverse stem means that even if this reference is combined with Sharp,
all of the required structure would not be present.
For the reasons explained above, while each of the Nickipuck references discloses
some of the structure recited in claim 19, no single one discloses all that is missing from
the primary reference. This being the case, it is our conclusion that a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 19 is not
established by combining Sharp with any of the three Nickipuck references.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007