Appeal No. 97-3981
Application 08/506,423
The appellant has not challenged the rejection of claim 7 with any reasonable
specificity (see page 9 in the brief), thereby allowing this claim to fall with parent claim 6
(see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claim 8 requires the elongated arm recited in parent claim 6 to be removably
mounted on the mounting arm. Although the appellant is correct that Schumacher does not
expressly disclose the elongated arm (reciprocating member 27) as being removably
mounted on the mounting arm (frame 12) (see page 10 in the brief), such a removable
mounting would have been an obvious common sense expedient to one of ordinary skill in
the art to facilitate repair of the apparatus. In this regard, a conclusion of obviousness may
be based on common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the
art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d
1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9
as being unpatentable over Schumacher in view of Persaud, and further in view of Chong,
or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 as being unpatentable over
Schumacher in view of Persaud.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and requires a counterweight which is movable on
the elongated arm. Claim 10 depends from claim 6 and requires the elongated arm to be
pivotally mounted on the mounting arm. Suffice it to say that there is nothing in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007