Appeal No. 2000-1841
Application 09/016,738
[t]he implement 11 is articulatably pivotal
around the dipper arm 10 in response to movement of
the linkage 12 by hydraulic ram 13.
Forked dipper arm 10 comprises [a] main . . .
strut member 15 with furcations or sub-strut members
16,17 extending therefrom. A substantially U-shaped
portion 18 is thereby formed between the furcations
[column 5, lines 33 through 39].
In proposing to combine Shook and Brown to reject the
appealed claims, the examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious to construct each boom 14 in Shook as a box beam
with spaces at opposite ends for links 23 and lever 29 in view
of the teaching in Brown. See Brown[’s] . . . portion 18.
Note appellants’ claims do not preclude the use of parallel
booms” (answer, page 3). The examiner goes on to reason that
the alignment in Shooks [sic] of elements 23 and 29
would lead an artisan to use open spaces at opposite
ends of boom 14 in view of the open space [18]
taught by Brown. This arrangement using open spaces
at opposite ends of boom 14 in Shook to receive link
23 and lever 29 instead of mounting them to the side
of the boom would be an obvious substitution of
equivalent structures [answer, page 5].
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must rest on a
factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967). In making such a rejection, the
examiner has the initial duty of supplying the requisite
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007