Appeal No. 95-2623
Application 08/084,623
after being compressed or extended. The artisan would have
recognized that any elastic material can be used as a spring
under certain circumstances. The artisan would also be
familiar with the fact that glass is a known elastic material.
Thus, since the artisan would know that metal, glass, quartz
and plastic are all elastic materials and, therefore, would
have broad application as springs, the invention as broadly
recited in claims 23-26 would have been obvious to the artisan
for reasons noted by the examiner.
Since the examiner has established a prima facie case
of the obviousness of claims 23-26, and since appellant has
presented no evidence or arguments which demonstrate error in
the examiner’s position, we sustain the rejection of claims
23-26.
In conclusion, we have sustained both of the
examiner’s rejections of claims 22-26. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22-26 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007