Appeal No. 2003-1476 Page 4
Application No. 09/291,983
requisite strength, is admirably adapted for the straining of
the saw for actual work.”
The examiner further takes Official Notice (answer, page 4) that
it is old and well known in the art, particularly the mechanical
arts, that corners or sharp bends or the like create stress
risers wherein stress is concentrated in a relatively small
area of a component which may lead to premature failure of
the component in that area. It is further known that to
alleviate this problem, the material in that area must either
be “overdesigned” (i.e., designed with stronger material or
enough additional material to provide the needed extra
strength and endurance for a sufficiently long life for the
component) or designed more “efficiently” without such
corners or sharp curves to eliminate the stress concentration
areas which usually provides benefits such as requiring less
material resulting in a lighter weight component.
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention “to provide the frame member of David
with the claimed arcuate portion for providing an efficient design along with the other
well known benefits described above as well as those taught by Wells” (answer, page
4).
Appellant argues that the examiner has not pointed to any evidence suggesting
the combination of David and Wells to arrive at appellant’s invention and, in particular,
argues that Wells teaches away from the combination of the I-beam of David with the
arcuate frame of Wells (brief, pages 4-6). Appellant also argues that the Official Notice
relied upon by the examiner is apparently not derived from any specific knowledge of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007