Appeal No. 1999-0604
Application 08/575,477
within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The change in
diameter of the bottom longitudinal wires would not
destroy the function of the Simon wire tray nor
would it produce any unexpected results.
* * * * *
Simon discloses that it is known to have a
longitudinal wire [10] having a cross section area
of less than that of the said sidemost bottom
longitudinal wires. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to have made at
least one intermediate bottom longitudinal wire
having the lessen [sic: lesser] cross sectional area
because the applicant contends that to provide such
a wire provides the unexpected result of reduction
in cost and weight. The examiner would like to
point out that to materially reduce the size of a
component is well known in the art to reduce the
cost and weight of the invention and is therefore
not an unexpected or patentable feature as the
applicant suggests.
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken. In
the first place, it is not evident why Simon's disclosure of
an additional, smaller diameter wire 10 in the bend 73 of hook
72 for the purpose of "rigidifying the structure" would have
suggested reducing the diameter of one or more of Simon's
bottom wires 8. Contrary to the examiner's conclusion, supra,
we do not regard Simon's disclosure of wire 10 as a teaching
that any of the longitudinal wires may have different
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007