Appeal 2007-1204
Application 10/370,869
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87, 78 USPQ2d at 1335-1336.
ANALYSIS
The rejections are affirmed as to claims 1-32 and 45-57.
The Combination of Engibarov and Wharton
All claims 1-32 and 45-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Engibarov in view of Wharton. Appellants assert “the
Examiner has impermissibly used Appellants' teachings as a guide in order to
select elements from two references unrelated both to each other and to Appellants'
invention in attempting to arrive at Appellants' invention” (Br. 13). We reject the
notion that the references, Engibarov and Wharton, are unrelated both to each other
and to the Appellants’ device because, as found supra, both prior art devices
disclose a tooling apparatus for holding a workpiece to perform a work operation
on it. Engibarov is properly relied on as a base reference because it discloses a
base 10 having T-slots 12 serving as a locating feature for an insert clamped to the
base 10 to define “a location” when tensioned by clamping bolts 70, 72 threaded to
a clamping member 60. The one feature lacking in Engibarov is a base configured
for semi-permanent attachment to a table of a metalworking machine. Wharton,
however, discloses this feature at base member 2 with sub-base 1. Like the base in
Engibarov, the sub-base 1 in Wharton also has T-slots 4, 5 serving as a locating
feature for an insert 7. This insert also uses the T-slot to clamp it in place on the
base using T-shaped bolts 53. Thus, in each of Engibarov and Wharton, like
mechanisms are used to fix the respective inserts in place on each device. The
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013