Appeal No. 97-4206
Application 08/662,263
As to the appellants' contention that if the latching
member of were made wide enough to engage several blades it
would be "too stiff for practicality," we observe that all of
the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference (see the above-noted
test for obviousness) and the artisan is not compelled to
blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over
the other without the exercise of independent judgment (Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ
1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, it is the admitted prior
art which teaches that the spring arm should not be so stiff
that it could not effectively engage several blades.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Rohrer
'143.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 22
based on the combined teachings of the admitted prior art and
either Brooker or Favreau, the examiner is of the opinion that
it would have been obvious to form the flange of the admitted
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007