Appeal No. 1996-1897
Application 08/064,145
“substantially reusable.” In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950-51, 186 USPQ 80, 82-83 (CCPA 1975).
In similar manner, we find no evidence in this record that “continuous cracks” are not formed in the
enclosures of Wendt made from plastic material containing reinforcing fillers when it becomes brittle
upon cooling to remove the enclosure from the workpiece as specified in appealed claim 27. Id.
Furthermore, we find no support in appellants’ appealed claims as interpreted in light of their
disclosure for the notion that the appealed claims, such as claim 20, would preclude the use of plastic
material between the blades of a twin-blade workpiece as in Mushardt (id., page 9). We point out in
this respect that the claim language “webs at least partially enclose the leading edge and trailing edge
of the blade” in claim 20 (emphasis supplied) requires only that the blade be at least partially enclosed
by the webs, which, of course, is inclusive of being completely surrounded by the webs. With respect
to the arguments advanced with respect to appealed claims 23 and 25 (id., page 10), we remain of the
view that the distances between the chucking surfaces, that is, “ribs,” would have been a modification
made by one of ordinary skill of this art working through routine experimentation to provide such
surfaces as required to orient the workpiece in a machine tool or tools.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have weighed
the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Mushardt and Wendt with appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 12 through 14 and 16 through 29 would have been obvious as a matter
of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
While we have affirmed the ground of rejection under § 103 over the combined teachings of
Mushardt and Wendt which encompassed appealed claims 26 and 27, we cannot reach the same7
conclusion with respect to the ground of rejection of these appealed claims under § 102(b) as anticipated
by Wendt alone. As we found above, Wendt does not specifically disclose “a plastic material enclosure
having several spaced apart ribs connected along a surface of said metal workpiece through webs”
7A reference that does not anticipate the claimed invention under § 102(b) can still be applied thereto
“as evidence of obviousness under § 103 for all it fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973).
- 15 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007