Appeal No. 2002-0588
Application No. 08/566,206
body from one position to another position. (See brief at page 6 and Philips Figure 2
and translation at page 5.)
Appellants argue that they traverse the examiner’s attempt to modify the
teachings of Knutson without any basis in the reference or anywhere else for such a
modification. Appellants maintain that the asserted modification is an attempt by the
examiner to perform hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. (See brief at
page 6.) Appellants argue that the examiner has set forth no objective evidence/basis
for combining the teachings of the references in the manner used in the rejection where
the helpful portions were selected and the unhelpful portions were ignored. (See brief
at page 9.) We agree with appellants that the examiner has found various parts to the
claimed invention in the two prior art references and has attempted to pick and choose
the needed portions of the references. (See brief at pages 6-9.) Appellants argue that
the examiner stated that the motivation for combining the teachings of the prior art
references is that the references are in the “same field of endeavor.” Appellants further
argue that the examiner does not address the argument concerning the propriety of
combining analogous art references. Appellants argue that the examiner has provided
no objective basis for selecting from each reference those features which aid in the
forming of a facsimile of the invention. (See brief at page 9.) We agree with appellants
that the examiner’s rejection is riddled with bald assertions that structures are an
“equivalent structure known in the art” and “the armature inherently results in an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007