Appeal No. 97-4082
Application 08/365,849
the automatic door bottom of independent claim 1 comprises,
inter alia, a plurality of elongated resilient members spaced
along the width of a door bottom, with one of the resilient
members being closest to the hinge side of the door having a
lower resistance to bending than other resilient members.4
Appellant argues (brief, pages 6 through 9) that unlike
the teachings of Goellner and Wexler which employ a single
spring, appellant uses multiple springs.
A review of each of the Goellner and Wexler documents
reveals that a single member (elastic strip 7 of Goellner and
curved leaf spring 41 of Wexler) is taught, contrary to the
required plurality of elongated resilient members of claim 1.
An obviousness determination must be made upon the basis of
what “would have been obvious” (35 U.S.C. § 103) not what
“could have been” done (answer, page 10). Lacking any
evidence of obviousness suggestive of the claimed plurality
4Akin to claim 1, independent claim 13 specifies a plurality of springs with
different resistances to flexing, while claim 18 requires plural resilient members of
different spring stiffnesses.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007