Appeal No. 2006-0845 2
Application No. 10/113,524
contaminants such as water and other fluids, dirt, and abrasive
particles, etc. The invention also eliminates the need for making
contact surfaces in wedge mechanisms with high hardness and high
geometrical accuracy, thereby allowing the use of lighter materials
for the structural parts of the wedge mechanism. Independent claim
1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of
that claim can be found in Appendix A of appellant’s brief.
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims includes:
Rivin ‘540 5,595,540 Jan. 21, 1997
Appellant’s admitted prior art -- the basic
conventional wedge mechanism of Figure 1 and the description
thereof on pages 1-3 of the specification (hereinafter, the AAPA)
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Rivin ‘540.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the
above-noted obviousness rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant concerning that rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed October 4, 2005)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007