Appeal No. 1998-2415 Page 7
Application No. 08/751,798
Turning first to claim 36, appellants (brief, page 7) argue that the 27 -33 range taught byo o
McBrady would not have rendered obvious the claimed range for the primary angle because (1) the
several important advantages of the invention are not enjoyed by any of the prior art and (2) McBrady
expressly admonishes that the angle (A) must not exceed an angle of 33 . For the following reasons,o
we do not find these arguments persuasive of non-obviousness.
Initially, we note that appellants' claim 36 recites that the primary angle is "between about 35o
o o
and about 60 " (emphasis added), which allows for angles slightly smaller than 35 , and that McBrady
discloses a primary angle of "between about 27 -33 " (emphasis added), which allows for angleso o
slightly larger than 33 . See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37o
o o
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Given the very small difference, 2 degrees, between a 33 angle and a 35 angle, we
are of the opinion that the range disclosed by McBrady would have prima facie suggested the primary
angle range of claim 36.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to the primary angle ranges recited in
appellants' claims 38 and 39. Specifically, we do not agree with the examiner that the angular range of
"between about 27 -33 " disclosed by McBrady would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in theo o
o o
art a primary angle of "between about 47 and about 55 " as recited in claim 38 or a primary angle of
o o
"about 50 ± 0.5 " as recited in claim 39. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007