Ex Parte Webster et al - Page 11

              Appeal Number:  2006-0965                                                                                 
              Application Number: 10/827,051                                                                            

              have another shape, for example, a triangular cross section.  In addition, figures 6                      
              and 7 show, (unlabeled) the two stop blocks to have different shapes.  From this                          
              disclosure of Buchler, we find a suggestion of having substitutable stop blocks                           
              between the workpiece and the back wall.  In any event, from the disclosure of                            
              Yates of having substitutable jaw faces of different sizes (p. 2, ll. 1-4), and the                       
              disclosure of different shapes for the stop members in Buchler, we find that an                           
              artisan would have been motivated to provide Buchler with interchangeable stop                            
              blocks between the back member and the workpiece.                                                         
                     We are not persuaded by appellants' assertion that Buchler lacks removable                         
              stop blocks because to use a stop block of another shape, it would have been                              
              obvious to replace the stop block with a stop block of another shape.  Nor are we                         
              persuaded by appellants' assertion (Brief p. 12) that Buchler emphasizes a flat                           
              workpiece while Yates clamps a curved workpiece, such as a pipe, because in                               
              Buchler, the flat surface appears to be the top, and not the sides.  Buchler (col. 3, ll.                 
              55-56) specifically discloses that the flat workpiece W can have an irregular or                          
              curved contour.                                                                                           
                     From all of the above, we find that the combined teachings of Yates and                            
              Buchler would have suggested to an artisan the invention of claims 33 and 34.                             
              The rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.  However,                        
              because we have relied on different portions of the prior art than the examiner, as                       
              well as a different rationale, we designate our affirmance as a New Ground of                             
              Rejection under the provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50(b).                                                      
                     In addition, we enter a New Ground of Rejection of claims 24 and 25 under                          
              35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and                                  
              suggestions of Buchler and Yates.  We make reference to our claim construction of                         
              claim 24, supra.  We reject claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the                             

                                                           11                                                           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013