Appeal No. 1996-3859
Application No. 08/278,910
difficulty in treating small wire diameters (brief, pages 16-
20), but present no argument regarding evidence directed to
rebutting the above-discussed prima facie case of obviousness
of the processes recited in claims 36 and 37. Consequently, 2
we conclude, based upon the preponderance of the evidence,
that the processes recited in these claims would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 38 depends from claim 36 and limits the wire
diameter to 1.2 mm or less. The examiner has not provided
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
interpreted the Vanneste ‘472 minimum wire size of about 1.5
mm as including 1.2 mm, or that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had a reasonable expectation that the Vanneste
‘472 process would be applicable to a wire having a 1.2 mm
diameter. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438,
1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The examiner merely asserts that 1.2
mm is close enough to 1.5 mm that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have expected wires having these diameters to have
2Claim 37, which depends from claim 36, limits the wire
diameter to 1.5 mm or less.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007