Appeal No. 1999-2088 Page 5
Application No. 08/782,243
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In the final rejection (p. 2), the examiner ascertained
with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 that Landenberger
"discloses the invention as claimed except for the pair of
right triangular tip portions a , a being of equal size not2 3
more than the size of right triangular tip portions a , a ."1 4
The examiner then determined that
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
make the right triangular tip portions a , a being of2 3
equal size not more than the size of right triangular tip
portions a , a , since such a modification would have1 4
involved a mere change in the size of a component. A
change in size is generally recognized as being within
the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105
USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It is our finding that the above-noted ascertainment by
the examiner that Landenberger "discloses the invention as
claimed except for the pair of right triangular tip portions
a , a being of equal size not more than the size of right2 3
triangular tip portions a , a " is incorrect for the reasons1 4
that follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007