Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
column (143). Thus, this line of argument on appellants’ part
is unpersuasive.
The examiner has additionally observed that the mounting
apparatus of Havins includes two mechanisms for individually
adjusting the grip of the swivel joint on the column and the
resistance of the swivel joint to rotation, while the
apparatus of appellants’ claim 1 requires “a singular
adjustment mechanism” for achieving these operations. To
account for this difference, the examiner has relied upon the
teachings of Dewey, urging that Dewey discloses a similar
swivel joint in which a column (B) is supported by a split
ball and socket arrangement which includes a single adjustment
mechanism (h) for controlling both column grip and column
pivot resistance. On the basis of the collective teachings of
these references, the examiner has concluded that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellants’ invention to further modify the support
apparatus of Havins by substituting a split ball like that of
Dewey for Havins’ ball/collar element (201, 199, 213) seen in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007