Appeal No. 2006-0845 3
Application No. 10/113,524
second revised brief (filed July 19, 2005) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art, and to the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
have made the determination that the examiner’s above-noted
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
The examiner’s position concerning the rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is set forth on pages 3-5 of the
answer. Essentially, the examiner points out that the basic
conventional wedge mechanism of AAPA Figure 1 is responsive to the
structural components set forth in claim 1 on appeal, except that
the AAPA does not describe, teach or suggest at least one of the
surface contacts between the wedge member (2) and the base member
(1) or the output member (3) “being maintained through a thin
constant thickness shim... comprising at least one thin layer of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007