Appeal No. 1999-2850
Application No. 09/042,861
apply further moving force...” or “operatively disconnecting the drive member...responsive
to the drive member encountering a resistance to movement above a predetermined level.
We interpret these various limitations as referring to a breakable or deformable member,
as disclosed, which will give way in the face of a
predetermined force. We find no such suggestion in the applied primary references and
we find no cogent rationale for combining either of these references with any one of the
nine cited secondary references.
Moreover, while we do not reach the declaration of Mr. Mason because, in our view,
the examiner has not even established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the instant claimed subject matter, we do note that while the declaration raises some
salient points regarding skepticism by others in the field and going in a direction
completely different from conventional methods, the examiner summarily dismisses the
declaration with curt replies of “no corresponding limitations in the claims,” “absence of any
corroborating affidavits,” “conventionial engineering expedient” and “opinions...[without]
factual basis” [final rejection, pages 11-12].
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007