Appeal No. 1999-2393
Application 08/845,848
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)." We are not convinced
by appellants’ argument. As we stated above, both Bronowicki
and Brull are directed to the testing of a specimen for
stresses and strains and both are designed to obtain as much
information regarding stresses and strain as the system would
allow. In our view, an artisan involved with the testing of a
specimen for stress and strain analysis would have found
obvious to look to Brull to modify Bronowicki’s system by
supplying a notch pattern type of stress concentrators in the
specimen. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 3 to 9 over Bronowicki and Brull.
In conclusion, we have sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 2 and the obviousness rejection of
claims 3 to 9. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 to 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claims 3 to
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007