Appeal No. 1998-2521
Application No. 08/184,212
ring clamp is defined as one form or species of a pinch clamp (claim 3 which recites the
ring clamp is dependent on claim 2 which recites the pinch clamp), it follows that
Crosbie’s clamp is also one form of a pinch clamp.
Appellant does not argue that the subject matter added by dependent claims 4-9
differs from Crosbie’s holder. In fact, the locking members defined in claims 4 and 5 are
met by Crosbie. As for claims 6-9, appellant concedes on page 28 of the main brief that
Crosbie’s attachment ears are also slotted. Like appellant’s structure, Crosbie’s
attachment ears are integral with the clamping body. For these reason we will also
sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 4-9.
We will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 19-24 and 37-48. In rejecting
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This burden has not been met with respect to claims 19-24 and
37-48. The examiner has presented no explanation or rationale in support of the § 103
rejection of these claims. In fact, other than the statement of the rejection, no mention is
made of these claims either in the initial answer (Paper No. 15) or in the supplemental
answer (Paper No. 23).
We also will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 10-18 and 25-33 based on
the combined teachings of Crosbie, Austin, the Ohio Chemical catalog and Cheng.
Neither Cheng nor any of the other applied references, for that matter, suggests
appellant’s claimed c-shaped pocket as defined in claims 10-18. Furthermore, even if
Crosbie’s holder were modified to somehow incorporate Cheng’s slot 25, the resulting
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007