Appeal No. 1999-0221
Application No. 08/766,847
Feller that the more non-circular the complementary
configurations, the more resistance is provided to rotation.
Therefore, we do not share the appellant’s opinion that the
improvement to resistance of rotation of one element with
regard to the other achieved by utilizing an opening of square
configuration rather than the substantially rounded one
disclosed by Gumkowski would have been unexpected.
For the foregoing reasons, even if this factor of the
rebuttal evidence is considered to apply to the subject matter
of claim 1, it can be accorded little if any weight.
The other test presented by the appellant was offered as
showing that the claimed invention required less riveting
force, angle and time, which also is alleged to be unexpected.
Even considering this evidence in its most favorable light,
and as being applicable to claim 1, it is our opinion that it
cannot be accorded sufficient weight on its own, or in concert
with the other evidence, to outweigh the evidence case of
obviousness. A distraction with regard to this factor is that
claim 1 is a product-by-process claim and the second proffered
unexpected result concerns the process and not the resulting
product.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007