Appeal No. 2002-1394
Application No. 09/109,132
In view of the above-noted structures, and the related structures described by
Ohkjita, the reference appears to show all that is required by instant claim 1, except that
fixing screw 12 does not connect the cover with the other recited structures. Cover 7 is
shown in Figure 2 and Figure 14. However, as shown in Figure 5, the top of screw 12 is
flush with upper yoke plate 37, over which cover 7 lies (Figs. 2 and 14).
Daniel shows, in Figure 1, a fastener that extends through cover 6 into pivot shaft
20. However, we find no suggestion in these references for placing fixing screw 12
through cover 7 in the Ohkjita apparatus. A presumption that such a modification would
result in an assembly that is better secured than the assembly expressly described by
Ohkjita would be mere speculation, in view of this record. Daniels has limited value as
a teaching reference in the context of the claimed invention. The fasteners extending
through cover 6 in Daniel are not directly related to the limit stops that are the principal
emphasis of Daniel’s disclosure, and thus are not described in detail. Finally, Ohkjita
could be viewed as warning against placing fixing screw 12 through cover 7, since the
reference stresses that upper pole (or yoke plate) 37 should be mounted by means of
flush head screws 12. Col. 5, ll. 55-62.
For the foregoing reasons we are in ultimate agreement with appellants. The
prior art as evidenced by the Daniel and Ohkjita references is insufficient to establish a
case for prima facie obviousness with respect to the claimed subject matter as a whole
of independent claim 1. Further, since Kawakami fails to remedy the deficiencies in the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007