Appeal No. 2000-0913
Application No. 09/067,123
segments, the result is nevertheless a single arm assembly
that corresponds to the claimed “single bar” of claim 2. In
this regard, claim 2 does not preclude the bar from being made
up of a plurality of segments. Appellants argue on page 12 of
the brief that Busch teaches away from the claimed invention
because Busch’s arm is an automatic device whereas both
appellants’ device and Niebuhr are manual devices. This
argument is not persuasive because it fails to take into
account that Niebuhr also discloses an automatic embodiment
(see page 5, lines 7-16), and because the claims are silent as
to how deployment of the restraint bar is accomplished. As to
the case law cited by appellants on pages 13-19 of the brief,
we agree with the principles of law articulated therein and
are of the view that our conclusions of obviousness comport
with the legal concepts for which these cases were cited.
Concerning, in particular, appellants’ contention that
there is no suggestion for the examiner’s proposed
modification of Niebuhr, we observe that the suggestion to
combine may come from
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007