Appeal No. 2000-2033
Application 08/331,851
Likewise, we affirm the rejection of claims 7 through 10
based on the combined teachings of Kopp, Caron and Watkins.
Watkins is cited to disclose a preferred manner of securing the
rubber band to the distal portion of the elongated rod of the
pistol shaped frame. Watkins uses a keyhole slot which allows
ready replacement of the rubber band, but insures that the rubber
band will not become easily detached under even the most violent
manipulation of the gun. Following this express disclosure of
Watkins, it would have been obvious to use a keyhole slot to
attach the rubber band to the insect killing gun of Kopp.
Appellant argues that Watkins is not within appellant’s
field of endeavor. Even if this were the case, appellant has not
argued that Watkins is not reasonably pertinent to the problem
with which appellant is concerned. In our view, the gun of
Watkins is reasonably pertinent to appellant’s problem.
Appellant states there is no motivation for using the feature of
Watkins with the combined teachings of Caron and Kopp. As noted
above, Watkins provides express, written motivation or suggestion
for the examiner’s proposed combination for claims 8 and 9. We
agree with the examiner that the exact orientation of the keyhole
slot is a design choice. We note appellant’s reliance on
benefits such as loose support of the lash, easy replacement
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007