Appeal No. 2006-0054
Application No. 10/007,189
socket 21 connected to the other end of the shaft via an
articulated joint.
In applying Jarvis and Martinez against the appealed claims,
the examiner fails to set forth any reasonably detailed findings as
to the manner in which these references are considered to meet or
not meet the various limitations in the claims. Notwithstanding
the examiner’s apparent determination to the contrary, Jarvis and
Martinez do not seem to be particularly relevant to the subject
matter claimed. For example, neither reference teaches or suggests
left and right external driver member means-receiving parts having
the particular socket, driver receiving bore and ball member
receiving bore/walls recited in independent claims 1, 13 and 15, or
the structural relationship between the left, right and ball member
parts recited in claims 13 and 15. These substantial evidentiary
deficiencies in Jarvis and Martinez find no cure in the examiner’s
further application of either Gadberry or Bellows.
Hence, as applied by the examiner, Jarvis, Martinez, Gadberry
and Bellows do not justify a conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in independent claims 8, 13 and
15 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007