Appeal No. 96-2640
Application No. 08/068,273
formerly integral structure in various
elements only involves routine skill in the
art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,
179 [(Bd. Pat. Int. 1969)]. (answer, page
7)
We do not consider this argument to be well taken.
Certainly, as Nerwin states, "the mere fact that a given
structure is integral does not preclude its consisting of
various elements" (id.), but what the examiner is proposing in
this case is not merely making die 6 or 7 out of a plurality
of elements, but rather adding to die 6 or 7 elements operable
independently therefrom to compress the preform 8. Such a
reconstruction of appellant’s disclosed prior art apparatus
would not constitute simply an obvious change in its
constituent number of elements, but instead would involve
modifying its elements and including other elements so that it
could perform one of its functions in a different way. We
find no evidence which would suggest such a modification to
one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore will not
sustain the rejection.
Rejection (3)
The examiner sets forth the basis of this rejection on
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007