Appeal No. 2000-0166
Application No. 07/809,042
Maltsev pin 14 for the purposes of alignment of pin 58 in the
pin hole 52 of the single plane structure of appellants.
Furthermore, we find, by looking at Figures 2 and 3a of Maltsev,
that pin 14 corresponding to the pin hole 10d is not separated
from the recited pressurizing rooms. We do not see any reason
whatsoever shown in Maltsev or given by the examiner that pin 14
in Maltsev would suggest putting pin 42 of the prior art (Figure
5 of appellants disclosure) in the geometric center of the
plates. Therefore, we are in agreement with appellants that the
admitted prior art and Maltsev would not have been found obvious
to be modified as suggested by the examiner to meet the recited
structure in claim 1. Consequently, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and
3 over the admitted prior art in view of Maltsev.
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007