Appeal No. 2006-1745 Page 5
Application No. 10/010,361
specific combination that was made by the applicant
[citations omitted].
In this instance, the examiner has not pointed to any teaching or suggestion
in either of the applied references that would have led one of ordinary skill in the
art to believe that the magnetic arrangement taught by Brown would better secure
Denby’s handle and key to the cam than the release clip and rib arrangement of
Denby securing the handle and key to the cap. Moreover, given the different
relationship between the magnetic tool and workpiece or other member of Brown
and the handle and cam of Denby, with the Brown magnetic tool holding the
member in place thereon to facilitate placing of the member in a position to be
driven and Denby’s clip and rib serving to secure the handle 52 onto the cap 66,
which houses the cam 74 and piston 64, while the bicycle is in use, it is not
apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to such a magnetic tool for
improvements in the securement means of Denby. Additionally, even assuming a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found suggestion to replace the clip
and rib securement arrangement of Denby with a magnetic arrangement as taught
by Brown, the appellant’s argument (brief, p. 5) that there is no teaching in either
reference of where to incorporate a magnetic attraction is well taken. Inasmuch as
Denby’s securement arrangement is between the handle 52 and the cap 66, it would
appear that, in the absence of appellant’s disclosure, such a person would have
immediately envisioned a magnetic attraction between the handle and the cap,
rather than between the handle and the cam, as called for in appellant’s claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007