Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
by Poe.
We, of course, have fully taken into account the
arguments advanced by appellants in the revised brief (pages
10 through 13) as regards the obviousness rejection. However,
for the reasons articulated below, we have not been persuaded
thereby. Appellants' request for clarification of the
examiner's rejection in the revised brief (page 10) appears to
us to be not only an untimely presentation on appeal, but also
one that is misdirected since appropriately the request should
have been made of the examiner, after the final rejection was
received, and prior to appeal. It does, however, appear to us
from appellants' subsequent discussion in the revised brief
that they do fairly understand the applied prior art and the
manner that the references are applied by the examiner. As we
see it, one having ordinary skill in the art would have
readily comprehended the respective disclosures of the applied
references and have been able to substitute a threaded
adjuster configuration of the type taught by Poe for the
threaded keeper of Claud-Mantle. Consistent with the view of
the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5), and contrary to the view
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007