Appeal No. 96-2127
Application 08/158,054
that this claim is patentable for the reasons expressed earlier
in the § 102 analysis with respect to claim 1. Such an
argumentative approach is clearly not persuasive.
As to the features recited in dependent claims 8 to 10 on
appeal, in addition to the position set forth by the examiner in
the answer, we add that appellants’ own disclosure takes the
position and inherently presumes that the features recited in
these claims are well known in the art anyway. In re Fox, 471
F.2d 1405, 1406-07, 176 USPQ 340, 341 (CCPA 1973). Christensen
also contains extensive discussions with respect to the use of a
“process plan” such as element 18 in Fig. 1b as a part of the
overall control manufacturing process in step 26 at the bottom of
Fig. 2, both of which have been outlined by the examiner in the
answer. The clear suggestibility to the artisan that in the
context of this portion of Christensen, physical process steps
would have been taught or suggested that were well known in the
manufacturing arts anyway would have been readily apparent to the
artisan. Obviously, to this same artisan, the choice and use of
the well known manufacturing processes chosen would have been
dependent upon the nature of the part and the result of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007