Appeal No. 2000-0511
Application No. 08/758,343
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1, or
claims 3, 4, 6 and 7 which depend from claim 1, as being anticipated by Blue.
The obviousness rejection
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the clamping member includes a
band which defines a loop of variable circumference and means for fixing the circumference of
the loop at any of a plurality of values. Claim 5, which also depends from claim 1, further
recites a screw adjustment for tightening the clamping member. In rejecting claims 2 and 5, the
examiner's position is that it would have been obvious to replace the support portion 11 of Blue
with an adjustable clamping band as taught by Bramming to provide a more efficient gripping
of the clamping member on the article. Moreover, according to the examiner, "the modified
Blue device would still include an anchoring member (34), as originally disclosed, and also
include the claimed clamping member, as taught by Bramming" (answer, page 5).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). For the reasons which follow, we share the appellant's opinion, as
expressed on page 4 of the reply brief, that the combined teachings of Blue and Bramming
would not have suggested the subject matter of the claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007