Appeal No. 95-4550
Application 08/025,902
Yumura expressly teaches away from appellant’s invention. Our
first difficulty with this argument is that the disclosure in
column 2, lines 52-59 of the Yumura specification is not a
description of Yumura’s invention. Instead, it is a description
of the prior art embodiment shown in Figure 5 of the Yumura
drawings.
Furthermore, there is no statement in this or any other part
of Yumura’s specification which expressly states that a double
bend bight such as Yamada’s double bend bight should not be
incorporated into the various flexure members shown in Yumura’s
drawings. As such, it cannot be said that Yumura “expressly
teaches away” from the use of such a bight as argued on page 9 of
the brief.
Contrary to appellant’s argument in the paragraph bridging
pages 10 and 11 of the brief, we find no statement in Yumura’s
specification which expressly denounces a double bend bight
portion which in the terms of claim 1 results in “said second
portion lying in a plane substantially parallel to the plane of
the first portion.” Other than the prior reference to column 2 of
Yumura’s specification on page 9 of the brief, appellant offers
no citation to the record to support the contention in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007