Appeal No. 98-1264 Page 5
Application No. 08/489,272
Sian’s spring member 40 has a compound curved portion at its
distal end which is “adjacent” the exit end of the chamber in
which it is mounted, and a contact portion extending from the
curved portion toward the entry end. This is all that is
required by the claim. There is no language in claim 1 that is
directed to the manner in which the terminal “behaves,” as is
argued by the appellants. We agree with the examiner that this
subject matter is taught by Sian.
Therefore, in the absence of other argument which would
compel us to decide oppositely, it is our opinion that the
teachings of Sian establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with regard to the subject matter of claim 1, and we will
sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also will sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3 and 5-8, which depend from claim 1, in
view of the fact that the their separate patentability was not
argued, in accordance with In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1570,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The same rationale applies to remaining independent claims
11 and 20, which also require a curved portion adjacent the
exit end, and to the claims dependent therefrom, for which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007