Appeal No. 95-1296
Application 08/073,257
At the outset, we note appellants’ arguments with respect
to the differences between their “invention” and the device
disclosed by Fitzgerald [brief, pages 5-6]. We are not persuaded
that these differences evidence error in the examiner’s rejection
because nonobviousness is not determined by the number of
differences which can be found between a disclosed invention and
a prior art device. Rather, obviousness is determined by whether
the claimed invention would have been suggested by the applied
prior art to one having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we
consider appellants’ arguments only as they specifically relate
to limitations recited in the claims.
With respect to each of independent claims 10, 21 and 29,
appellants argue that the step of “selecting a type of tolerance”
is not taught by Fitzgerald because Fitzgerald teaches only one
type of tolerance and there can be no selection of only one type
of tolerance [brief, page 7]. The examiner responds that
Fitzgerald teaches at least two types of tolerances and explains
that a model is not complete until the tolerances have been added
to the model [answer, pages 8-9].
We agree with the examiner’s position on this point. Any
model in a solid modeling system designed for manufacture has the
dimensions and tolerances placed thereon as noted by Fitzgerald
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007