Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
ends and a retaining slot communicating with the second slot
end of the engagement slot), as recited in claim 1.
From our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the
selected pieces from the references together in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellants' disclosure.
This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 4, 8, 14 and 16
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Mesenhöller
in view of Kentish.
The deficiency in the combination of Mesenhöller and
Kentish with respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1
finds no cure in the various references applied to support the
obviousness rejections of the claims which respectively depend
from claim 1. Accordingly, we also shall not sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 9 and 10 as being unpatentable
over Mesenhöller in view of Kentish and Harrigan or Davis,
claims 11 and 12 as being unpatentable over Mesenhöller in
view of Kentish and Inoue, claims 13 and 15 as being
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007