Appeal No. 98-1031
Application 08/674,667
Opinion
Considering first the standing rejection of claims 1, 2,
5-11, 17-19, 21 and 22 as being unpatentable over Christie in
view of Metallwerke, the examiner has implicitly found that
posts 26 and deformed ends 26a of Christie correspond to the
claimed protrusions on the lower member having laterally
extending holding fingers, and that members 50 of Christie
correspond to the claimed downwardly extending legs on the
upper member having at least one side wall. Accepting for the
sake of argument these findings, it is apparent, and the
examiner does not argue otherwise, that Christie still lacks a
notch in the side wall of the upper member engageable with one
of the holding fingers of the lower member, as called for in
each of the independent claims on appeal. As we understand
it, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the
circumferential rib 11 of Metallwerke’s support element 1 (see
figs. 5 and 6) and the unnumbered groove in Metallwerke’s
platform 4 that envelops that rib (see, for example, fig. 1),
to provide a notch in Christie’s upper member to receive the
deformed ends 26a of the lower member’s post 26. It is our
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007