Appeal No. 2001-2595
Application 09/245,640
(P). What the examiner finds lacking in this reference relative
to appellant’s claimed subject matter (e.g., claim 1) is that the
holes in the plates are not equally spaced. To account for this
difference, the examiner turns to the adjustable work piece
clamping apparatus of Meyer, noting that this patent discloses a
plate (2) with an array of regular spaced holes for receiving
work piece holders for clamping and holding a work piece. From
the collective teachings of the applied patents, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to make the
hole pattern on the jaw plates of Hennessey in the manner taught
by Meyer, i.e., as an array of regularly spaced holes, in order
to enable the user to have more possibilities of work holder
positioning on the jaw plates.
The crux of appellant’s argument is that the examiner’s
reliance on Meyer for the teaching of a pattern of regularly
spaced holes is an improper inference on the examiner’s part,
without support from Meyer’s specification. In particular,
appellant contends that there is no basis for assuming that
Meyer’s nearest-neighbor holes are equidistant. We do not agree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007