Appeal No. 2003-1254 Page 13
Application No. 09/284,793
have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. However, in making this rejection, the examiner assumed that all the limitations
of parent claim 6 were disclosed in Strömberg. Thus, even if the additional limitations
set forth in dependent claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the examiner has not set forth any basis why the claimed subject matter as a whole
(i.e., including the limitations of parent claim 6) would have been obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the examiner has not set forth any basis or evidence as
to why it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Strömberg to have a second spring acting on
the clamping piece (Strömberg's retaining ruler 7) so as to press the clamping piece
against the wedge piece (Strömberg's tightening ruler 9).
Since the examiner has not established that the claimed subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth above,
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007