Appeal No. 96-3407
Application 08/325,549
provide the device of Harrill with such a plate, the claimed
invention would not result. That is, each of the claims
requires that the spool be "free from attachment to the
container" and that the bottom of the spool be "freely
resting" on either the base of the container (claims 1 and 16)
or within the container (claim 17). Apparently recognizing
this to be the case, the examiner has also taken the position
that:
It would also have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to omit the screw 54 of
Harrill so that the spool may be readily removed
from the container as it is well established that
[the] omission of an element and its function where
not needed is obvious . . . . [Answer, page 5.]
With respect to the examiner's position that "it is well
established" that the omission of an element and its function
would have been obvious, we observe that this issue is based
upon a determination of obviousness under § 103, rather than
upon a "hard and fast" mechanical rule. See, e.g., In re
Wright,
343 F.2d 761, 769, 145 USPQ 182, 190 (CCPA 1965). Here, in
Harrill, the spool 28,30 is both supported by and mounted for
rotation on hub 48 which has an integrally formed retaining
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007