Appeal No. 97-4185 Page 15
Application No. 08/602,274
has not established a proper factual basis to support the
rejection of claim 5. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 5, as well as claims 6 and 7
dependent thereon, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 adds to parent claim 9 the limitation
that the spring member is semi-circular.
The examiner stated (answer, p. 4) that the shape of the
spring member is an obvious expedient known in the art and
that semicircular springs are known in the art to reduce crack
propagation.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 14 and reply brief, pp.
3-4) that the examiner has failed to cite any prior art
teaching in support of the examiner's determination of
obviousness. We agree. In that regard, the examiner has not
provided any evidence that establishes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007