Appeal No. 2000-1614
Application No. 08/944,371
for the purpose of providing a different
aesthetical arm rest and since such a
modification would not have produced any
unexpected results.
We do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. Even assuming that it would have been obvious to
make Baggett’s cap 75 in a spherical shape, cap 75 is not an
arm rest, but simply the end of the rod 45. In the use of
Baggett’s device, the user’s arm does not rest on the cap, but
rather, the rod 45 is held against the forearm F of gun G, as
shown in Fig. 9 (col. 6, lines 7 to 14). By contrast, arm
rest 7 of Cover is a U-shaped "arm-receiving bracket" (page
1, line 69), on which, when in use as shown in Fig. 5, the
wearer’s elbow rests. We perceive no reason why one of
ordinary skill would derive from Baggett any teaching or
suggestion to substitute a tip 75 as disclosed by Baggett
(whether spherical or not) for the arm rest 7 of Cover, since
Baggett’s tip 75 is not disclosed as an arm rest and clearly
would not be suitable for use as an arm rest in the manner
shown by Cover.
We therefore will not sustain rejections (3) and (4).
Conclusion
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007