Appeal No. 96-1511
Application 08/063,919
established by the appellant as solving a stated problem or
presenting a novel or unexpected result (see In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA 1975)) and would serve
Copell’s objective of adapting the holder device to receive oval-
shaped articles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Copell in view of Engvall, and further in view
of Frank.
The Copell holder device as modified in view of Engvall does
not meet the limitation in claim 10 requiring that each wing
portion uniformly taper from the base portion to its free wing
edge.
Frank discloses a holder device for articles such as
electronic components. The device is made of a resilient
material and includes a body or base portion 16 and two arms or
wing portions 22 extending upwardly from the body portion to
receive the article. As shown in Figure 2, the arms or wing
portions taper from the body portion to their free edges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of Frank to so taper the wing portions of the Copell
holder device as modified in view of Engvall, thereby arriving at
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007