Appeal No. 1998-1090
Application No. 08/534,965
In response, Appellants contend (Brief, pages 3 and 4),
that in order to make the combination proposed by the
Examiner,
each of the Budlane and Barnes references would have to be
reconstructed in a manner not suggested by either of the
references. Further, Appellants assert that any structure
that might possibly result from the Examiner’s proposed
combination would not teach the claimed structure of
independent claims 6 and 14.
After careful review of the Budlane and Barnes references
in light of the arguments of record, we are in general
agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Brief.
In our view, the Examiner has combined the blade switch and
lever structure of Budlane with the blade switch structure of
Barnes in some vague manner without specifically describing
how the teachings would be combined. This does not persuade
us that one of ordinary skill in the art having the references
before her or him, and using her or his own knowledge of the
art, would have been put in possession of the claimed subject
matter.
We note that in the “Response to argument” portion at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007