Appeal No. 97-0766 Page 11
Application No. 08/287,448
Second, the appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-7) that it
would not have been obvious to modify Gebhardt by the
teachings of Withers since this would negate the compensatory
feature of Gebhardt (i.e., the unitary nature of primary
member 1) that permits the use of a plurality of parts for the
secondary member 2 and that such a combination would increase
the complexity of assembly and maintenance for Gebhardt. We
do not agree. It is our view that the combined teachings of
Gebhardt and Withers would have suggested such a modification
to Gebhardt's primary member 1 for the self evident advantages
thereof, such as ease of replacing a broken element.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Dependent claims 19 through 22 have not been separately
argued by the appellant. Accordingly, these claims will be
treated as falling with independent claim 18. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007