Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 11
Application No. 08/856,943
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re
Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993)(quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to show that Mattering cures the
defect of Tomura. Although Mattering discloses “a catch loop
111 of the adapter,” p. 13, the catch loop protrudes neither
toward the reference’s “contact springs 116, 117,” id., nor
toward its “indentation 102, into which the hair cutting
machine 103 can be inserted.” Id. at 12. To the contrary,
Mattering depicts the catch loop 111 as angled away from the
contact springs 116, 117 and from the indentation 102. Figs.
15, 17.
Because Tomura’s lug protrudes generally perpendicular to
its charging terminals and generally parallel to its recess,
and Mattering’s loop is angled away from its contact springs
and indentation, we are not persuaded that the teachings from
the applied prior art would have suggested the limitations of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007