Appeal No. 2000-0321 Page 7
Application No. 08/834,578
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Basic to all the rejections before us in this appeal is
the examiner's determination (answer, pp. 3 and 7-8) that
Rigandi's member 80 and wing 86 were readable on the claimed
"resilient support member" and "resilient cantilevered arm
member." We agree with the appellants (brief, pp. 10-11, and
reply brief, pp. 2-4) that the above-noted determinations of
the examiner are incorrect. In that regard, Rigandi describes
(page 2, left column, lines 4-5) member 80 as "a rigid member
having end wings 82 and 84 and a center wing 86." Thereafter,
Rigandi teaches that the rigid member 80 is preferably formed
from metal. Since a rigid member is the antithesis of a
resilient member for the reasons pointed out by the
appellants, it is our view that Rigandi's member 80 and wing
86 are not readable on the claimed "resilient support member"
and "resilient cantilevered arm member." Thus, even if it
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Rigandi as set forth in the rejections under appeal, such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007