Appeal No. 2005-0948 Page 22
Application No. 09/922,938
indexing device. The plunger 111 is only engaged with the notches of the spindle when it
is desired to change an indexing disk.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 8-11) that it would not have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Hardy to include a spring-biased pin as taught by Lebermann's spring-biased plunger
111. We agree. In our view, the teachings of Hardy that the outer surface of the drum 40
should remain smooth and free from irregularities would have convinced a person having
ordinary skill in the art to not modify the outer surface of the drum 40 to have a multiplicity
of notches engagable with a spring-pressed plunger in the manner taught by Lebermann.
The only possible suggestion for modifying Hardy in the manner proposed by the
examiner to meet the spring urged indexing pin limitation stems from impermissible
hindsight knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 21
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hardy in view of McCormack and Clay.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007