Appeal 2007-2306
Application 10/636,120
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness. Wakeman is discussed above. Moore describes a lift cylinder
comprising “first, second, third and fourth vertically oriented cylinder
members 11, 12, 13 and 14 of decreasing cross-sectional area telescopically
arranged within each other” (Moore, col. 3, ll. 41-46). Based on the
teaching in Moore of four telescopically arranged members, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify Wakeman’s
telescopic hinge to include a third telescopically arranged segment, in order
to increase the expansion capabilities of the hinge.
Appellant argues that “there is no motivation or suggestion to
combine reference teachings as proposed by the Examiner” (Br. 7).
Specifically, Appellant argues that Wakeman’s “support member 25 . . . is
not ‘telescopic’” and “does not include any slidable segments” (id. at 8).
This argument is addressed above.
Appellant also argues that Wakeman “appears to teach away from the
proposed combination” (Br. 8). Specifically, Appellant argues:
[T]he support member 25 of Wakeman includes a post
(positioning rod 31) that is disposed into the opening formed in
the housing 21 of the Wakeman device. . . . [P]roviding any
extension in the Wakeman device as proposed by the Examiner
appears unnecessary and would add additional cost to the
Wakeman device at least because the proposed “increase[ed]
. . . expansion capabilities” as suggested by the Examiner
appears to be easily obtainable in the Wakeman device by
increasing the length of the post (positioning rod 31).
(Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, Appellant has provided
no evidence that it would be more cost-effective to increase the length of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013