Appeal No. 2003-1254 Page 12
Application No. 09/284,793
since the spring means 17 acts on the wedge piece (Strömberg's tightening ruler 9) and
on the clamping piece (Strömberg's retaining ruler 7) via the wedge piece so as to press
the clamping piece against the wedge piece.
In our view, the second spring limitation (i.e., "a second spring acting on said
clamping piece so as to press said clamping piece against said wedge piece") does
specify the direction of force of the second spring (acting on the clamping piece so as
to press the clamping piece against the wedge piece) and therefore is not readable on
Strömberg's spring means 17 for the reasons set forth by the appellants.
Since all the limitations of claim 6 are not disclosed in Strömberg for the reasons
set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Strömberg.
In the obviousness rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner (answer, p. 4)
determined that the additional limitations set forth in dependent claims 7 and 8 would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007