Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
Figure 8 in order to simplify column adjustment as taught by
Dewey and to provide a socket more fully matching the shape of
the surface of the ball to increase surface area contact and
thereby the gripping force as inherently taught in Dewey. We
agree, noting that this would make the adjusting screw (219)
of Havins the “singular adjusting mechanism” required by
appellants’ claim 1.
Appellants’ argument (brief, page 6) that Dewey is
nonanalogous art to the present invention has been adequately
dealt with by the examiner on page 6 of the answer, and we
incorporate that reasoning in our decision. As for
appellants’ assertion that Havins teaches away from the
present invention, we see nothing in Havins that expressly
teaches away from a broader area of contact on the ball so as
to enhance the gripping force that the socket elements can
apply to the ball. In that regard, we see nothing in Havins
that in any way limits the contact area between the ball (201)
and the plates (203) to line contact, as urged by appellant.
Moreover, we agree with the examiner that the combined
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007