Appeal 2007-2861
Application 10/861,057
profile” as “a profile such that during moving contact the contact point of the
faces lies along a straight line” (Reply Br. 2).
The deficiency of the Appellants’ argument is that the rejected claims
do not require, as Appellants presume, that the respective involute profiles of
the cam follower arm and the gripper member are in direct contact with one
another. Stated differently, these claims encompass a cam follower arm and
gripper member, each defining an involute profile for contact with another
element but not necessarily each other, which are connected indirectly.
Significantly, Dufour’s linkage (i.e., cam follower arm) 139 and gripper
finger (i.e., gripper member) 130 are connected to one another indirectly
(col. 5, ll. 11-23; figs. 1-3). Moreover, during moving contact, the contact
point of the respective faces for gripper finger 130 and linkage 139
reasonably appears to lie along a straight line (fig. 2) as required by
Appellants’ afore-quoted definition, and Appellants do not argue otherwise
with any reasonable specificity. While these contact points are with other
elements rather than each other, we again emphasize that the rejected claims
do not require direct connection or contact, and again Appellants do not
argue otherwise with any reasonable specificity. Under these circumstances,
it is appropriate to require Appellants to prove that Dufour’s linkage 139 and
gripper finger 130 respectively do not actually possess an involute profile,
and no such proof has been submitted in the record of this appeal. See In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (Where
patentability rests upon a characteristic of the claimed invention not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013