Appeal No. 2001-0036
Application 08/971,611
the art to modify Challande by using PTFE as the anti-friction
material (at 20 of Challande) as suggested in Bernard (col. 1,
lines 29-31) and by using a curved sliding groove as shown in
Bernard (Fig. 2) in Challande, such modifications still would
not provide response for the teachings and suggestions we have
indicated above to be lacking in the basic reference to
Challande. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 5, 13 through 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Challande in view of Bernard will
likewise not be sustained.
As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bogner (answer,
page 7), we agree with appellants’ arguments as set forth on
pages 8 and 9 of the brief and in the reply brief. Again, the
examiner has relied upon appellants’ own teachings and
resorted to impermissible hindsight to modify the laterally
movable support arrangement seen in Figure 5 of the Bogner
reference in ways that are not suggested or motivated by the
reference, and in a manner which modifies the operation of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007