Appeal No. 1999-2677
Application 08/878,769
3). As so modified, the Japanese air bag apparatus presumably
would meet all of the limitations in the claim.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, however,
that the British reference is analogous art (the appellants
submit that it is not), the combined teachings of the two
references would not have suggested the modification of the
Japanese air bag apparatus proposed by the examiner. To begin
with, the examiner has failed to advance any evidence to
support
the proposition that the joint structures at issue in the two
references are structural equivalents. Moreover, even if such
a showing had been made, it would not be dispositive since the
mere existence of functional or mechanical equivalence does
not establish obviousness (see In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016,
1019, 139 USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA 1963)). Although the inner face
13 of the British base plate 2 effectively constitutes a side
inner face portion, the basic purpose of this element is to
secure the associated seal 3 and flange 4 in the proper
position. The Japanese joint has no such seal, and the flange
component thereof (the folded part 3 of each tongue piece 2),
by virtue of its interlocking relationship with the retainer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007