Appeal No. 2004-0504
Application No. 09/455,735
Raabe discloses that jaws J3 and J30 are “slidingly connected to
one another” in the embodiment of Figure 8, with no apparent
connection mechanism (see Figure 8 and page 2, right col., ll.
29-32). The examiner has not presented any reasons or technical
explanation, much less convincing reasons or explanation, why the
notches and teeth “locking mechanism” of Hogendijk (col. 6, ll.
10-13) would have been substituted or considered “functionally
equivalent” and obvious in view of these sliding mechanisms in
the spring clamp disclosed by Raabe. As correctly argued by
appellants (Brief, pages 4 and 9), the examiner has not
established any motivation or suggestion for combining the
references as proposed in the rejection on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the reference evidence. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 5-8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Raabe in view of Hogendijk.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007