Appeal No. 98-1455 Page 13
Application No. 08/625,936
of connecting hub 103 except for the projecting flange as
discussed above). When read in this manner, as shown in
Figure 17, the wall thickness of the flange is shown to be
less than the thickness of the unitary body. Thus, De Rose
anticipates claim 18 and "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Furthermore, it is our determination that the
relative thickness between De Rose's flange relative to the
thickness of one of his side plates 102 would have been an
obvious matter of engineering design as in In re Kuhle, 526
F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) ("Use of such means
of electrical connection in lieu of those used in the
references solves no stated problem and would be an obvious
matter of design choice within the skill in the art."
(citations omitted)).
Dependent claim 19 adds to parent claim 16 the limitation
that the flange extends "outwardly from the unitary body by a
dimension at least as great as a thickness of the unitary
body."
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007