Appeal No. 1999-1912
Application No. 08/730,724
“second bush” “with a flexible second bush which is expanded4
upon axial displacement, as taught by [Krüsi]” (answer, page
4). Implicit in the above is the examiner’s determination
that these modifications of Suzuki would result in a device
that corresponds to the subject matter of claims 3, 4, 6 and
15-18 in all respects.
We cannot accept the examiner’s position. At the outset,
given the fundamental differences in construction and
operation of the connecting means of Rudolf and Krüsi, it is
difficult to imagine why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have turned to Krüsi as a teaching reference for
modifying the device of Rudolf. In particular, it is
difficult to image why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it desirable, and thus obvious, to replace the so-
called “second bush” [presumably, element 96] of Rudolf with a
flexible bush that is expandable upon axial
displacement thereof, notwithstanding that Krüsi teaches such
a construction. This is particularly so because there does
4Presumably, said “second bush” would correspond to
cylindrical piece 96 extending from circular disc shaped screw
head 92 of Rudolf, which the examiner has identified as being
a second bush in Rudolf.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007