Appeal No. 97-1883
Application 08/254,973
invention by the expressed or implied suggestions found in the
prior art. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994, 217 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1983). The examiner may not, because he or she doubts
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
In the instant case, it is the examiner's opinion that
Howlett shows all the structure of the device recited in the
claims except the specific shape, angle and material. The
examiner states:
...Howlett shows the corners are substantial round
since they are not completely square. Moreover such
specific shape would be considered as an obvious matter
of design as no specific unobvious nor unexpected
results are seen. The mere change of the shape is pure
a design of choice. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to make any corner
rounded for the sake of safety to prevent the formation
of any harmful shape corner. [Final Rejection at page
2]
We do not agree with the examiner that Howlett shows
substantially rounded edges. In our view, the edges of Howlett
are angular. Further, there is no disclosure, teaching or
suggestion of a second rounded edge having an enhanced curvature
which is defined in the specification at page 6 as having more
pronounced curvature than the first rounded edge.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007