Appeal No. 2001-0036
Application 08/971,611
of this rejection, the examiner has relied on In re Japikse,
181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), urging that this case
sets forth that as a general proposition “it has generally
been recognized that the rearrangement of location of parts
involves only routine skill in the art” (answer, page 5).
After reviewing the translation of the Challande
reference and the views expressed by the examiner and
appellants regarding this rejection, we find that we are in
agreement with appellants' position as set forth in the brief
(Paper No. 17) and reply brief (Paper No. 22). Like
appellants, we note that neither the description of the
invention in Challande nor the drawings therein provide any
basis whatsoever for the modifications of the embodiment of
Figure 5 of Challande as urged by the examiner. Nothing in
Challande in any way relates to the problem confronted by
appellants or to the results achieved by appellants' claimed
structure. While it may be true as a general proposition that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
including an anti-friction or bearing member between two
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007