Appeal No. 95-2623
Application 08/084,623
Claim 22 is an article claim in which the spring is recited as
having a helical cut. In our view, this recitation describes
a physical property of the spring and not the manner in which
the spring is manufactured. There is no evidence on this
record that the plastic helical spring of Kahn would have any
different properties from a cut helical spring. The artisan
would expect that two identically appearing springs would be
exactly the same regardless of the method of manufacture.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that appellant has not
demonstrated that a spring having a helical cut is any
different from an identical helical spring which has been
molded.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s rejection is
based upon the premise that a person shall not be entitled to
a patent unless criticality is shown” and this is “contrary to
statute” [brief, page 7]. As we noted above, the burden is
initially on the examiner to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. If that burden is met, obviousness is determined
on the relative persuasiveness of all the arguments and the
evidence.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007