Appeal No. 95-2623
Application 08/084,623
We note that the springs of Kazama and Kahn are very
similar in appearance. Both springs use a “helical cut” in
the middle with the ends being less resilient. In Kahn the
ends are part of a tube whereas in Kajama the ends are tightly
wound around a tube. The effect is basically the same. Thus,
the artisan would have appreciated that a spring, as broadly
recited in claim 22, has applications as diverse as a spring
for a writing instrument and a spring for a contact probe.
Although the spring in Kahn is clearly much larger than 0.01
inches, the spring in Kajama is within the same order of
magnitude as the claimed spring. Since the prior art
evidences that a spring having a helical cut has a wide
variety of uses, we agree with the examiner that the artisan
would select the size of the spring based upon the environment
in which it will be used. In other words, the record in this
case supports the examiner’s position as being reasonable and
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for a spring as
broadly recited in claim 22. Thus, even though appellant is
correct that he is not initially required to show criticality
of the dimensions, the burden of going forward has been
shifted in this case, and appellant must present a persuasive
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007