Appeal No. 1999-2327
Application No. 08/168,235
We focus our attention upon the respective registration
and collinear features of independent claims 1, 13, and 19.
It is quite apparent to us that the totality of the evidence
of obviousness applied by the examiner lacks any suggestion
thereof whatsoever.
As explained in the answer (pages 4 through 6), the
examiner considers the noted features a matter of design
choice, since alignment methods are indicated to be
notoriously old. Appellants, on the other hand, have
specifically argued that the collinear alignment and
registration features are nowhere shown or suggested by the
applied prior art references. (brief, pages 5 and 6).
3(...continued)
the feature of the second unit being selectively engageable
and disengageable from the first unit, as set forth in claim
13, contrary to the view of the examiner (answer, pages 6 and
7), the Heidenreich ‘517 teaching would not have been
suggestive thereof. It appears to us that seal 114 of
Heidenreich ‘517 would prevent removal of the second unit
through the end plate 94 of the first unit, and the end plate
90 of the first unit would have to be disassembled therefrom
to permit the second unit to be removed in the direction of
the input hub 72.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007