Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
The only possible reason we can see why claim 1 may not be
anticipated is if the limitation of "a support frame mounted to
said housing" requires the frame to be a separate piece from the
housing. As discussed, Suwa has structure corresponding to the
housing and to the support frame. It also has been discussed why
Suwa appears to have a separate housing consisting of a shield
and side support frames and, thus, anticipates a separate frame
and housing. In addition, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to make the housing separate from the
frame, if this is not taught already. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a separate housing and
frame to facilitate the assembly in the same way that automobile
engines were assembled to frames before mounting the body or that
television components are assembled to a chassis before being
mounted in the case.
The examiner cites Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179
(Bd. of Int. 1969) for the proposition that the separating an
integral structure into discrete elements would be obvious. This
is like one of the negative rule of inventions that existed
before the 1952 Patent Act. No per se rules of obviousness
exist. However, in our opinion, making one piece as several
pieces which are assembled together was common manufacturing
knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007