Appeal No. 95-4927
Serial No. 08/216,772
the examiner argued (at 3) that it would have been obvious "to
modify the high voltage device of [Figure 3A] of Yasui by
bending [alternate] leads approximately 90E to safeguard the
electrical integrity of the leads." In response to
appellants’ observation that neither reference discloses leads
located in two different planes (Brief at 6-7), the examiner
explained in the Answer (at 4) that it would have been obvious
to position the tips of alternate leads in different planes,
citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950),
for the proposition that rearranging the parts of an invention
involves only routine skill in the art. In the reply brief
(at 4), appellants correctly argue that Japikse does not
support this broad proposition and "request[] the examiner to4
show where in the prior art it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to position tips of electrically
conductive leads in different planes[,] as required by the
M.P.E.P. § 706.02(a)." This request is inconsistent with the
prior art identified in appellants’ Information Disclosure
The Japikse court held that the board did not err in concluding that4
it would have been obvious to shift the starting switch disclosed by a Cannon
reference to a different position because the operation of the device would
not thereby be modified. 181 F.2d at 1023, 86 USPQ at 73.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007