Appeal No. 2000-1616
Application 08/698,054
teachings of Havins and Dewey clearly would have been
suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of a greater
area of contact between the ball and the support plates given
the showing in Figure 1 of Dewey regarding the areas of
contact between the ball and socket elements therein. In this
regard, we also observe that while Dewey discloses use of the
holding device therein with an umbrella-stick (B), it
expressly notes (col. 2, lines 16-20) that the holding device
is “equally applicable to the retention of . . . other objects
which it is desired to adjust longitudinally or to an angle.”
Appellants’ assertions on pages 10 and 11 of the brief
that the examiner has not shown that Dewey has the capability
to adjust the grip on element (B) is also unpersuasive. This
argument from appellants is belied by the teachings of Dewey
at column 1, lines 12-18, that the semi-spherical blocks (A,
A’) of the holding device therein are “arranged to embrace the
umbrella-stick B, and to be tightly clamped to the same by the
pressure of [the] two recessed plates D, D’, between which the
said blocks are retained, and on which they can, together with
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007