Appeal No. 97-4206
Application 08/662,263
Considering first of claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 22 based on
the combined teachings of the admitted prior art and Rohrer
'143, the examiner is of the opinion that it would have been
obvious to form the flange of the admitted prior art with "an
inside corner of approximately 90E having effectively a zero
radius of curvature," as set forth in representative claim 1,
in view of the teachings of Rohrer '143.
The appellants do not dispute the examiner's finding that
Rohrer '143 has a flange which has an inside corner that
extends at an angle of "approximately 90E" and has
"effectively a zero radius of curvature." Instead, the
appellants note the deficiencies of the references
individually and urge that there is no suggestion to combine
their teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner. With
respect to the relied on prior art the brief states that:
The prior art tool shown in FIG. 3 and
associated description at page 10, lines 8-
36, in the present application includes a
catch 341 including a spring 316 of thin
sheet metal, with an end of the spring bent
to form a flange 318, but forming a curved
inside corner 322, as well. Such a spring
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007