Appeal No. 2001-0025
Application No. 08/751,980
The rejection of claims 29 and 30
We reverse the rejection of claims 29 and 30.
In appellant’s specification (page 2, line 22 to page 3,
line 2), it is indicated that the combination of pocket bores
and through-bores for accommodating the end parts of the
distancing pieces (pins) is contemplated according to certain
embodiments of the invention. Further, appellant teaches
(specification, page 4) and shows this combination in detail
in Figure 3.
Like the examiner (answer, page 5), we fully appreciate
that the applied teachings reveal that pocket bores for
isolation parts (Figures 10(b),(c),(d),(e),(f), and (g) of JP
‘327) and through-bores for hollow rivets (JP ‘327; Figure 3)
were well known at the time of appellant’s invention.
However, the difficulty we have with the rejection of claim 29
(and claim 30) is that the evidence of obviousness before us
would clearly not have been suggestive to one having ordinary
skill in the art of using other than either all pocket bores
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007