Appeal No. 1997-1314
Application No. 08/300,684
artisan, and objective considerations. The teachings of the
references, their relatedness to the field of the applicant’s
endeavor, and the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in
the field of the invention, are all relevant considerations.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447, 24 USPQ2d at 1445-46; In
re Gorman, 933 F.2d at 986-87, 18 USPQ2d at 1888; In re young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Appellants argue:
In addition, the device in Fig. 9, which
Examiner considers to be the support spring, does
not have the apertured portion 31c and the portion
31d (which Examiner considers to be the body
portion) to be present in a single plane as required
by the instant claims. (Answer-page 7.)
Although claim 1 does not recite “a single plane”,
we assume Appellants are referring to the following language
of claim 1:
the base portion lying in a first plane and the body
and apertured portions lying in a second plane, the
first and second planes intersecting to form an
angle...
Looking at Fukuzawa’s Figure 9 we see base portion
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007