Appeal No. 2001-0217
Application No. 09/186,741
it would have been obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made
to modify the side walls of Ellinwood by forming
them as having an arc having a radii and an arc
length, as taught by Bischof, in order to decrease
the friction between the biscuit and the attached
elements and thereby increase the ease as to which
the biscuit can be initially set into place [answer,
page 5].
The fair teachings of Ellinwood and Bischof, however, do
not justify this conclusion. To begin with, Bischof’s
drilling template, and particularly the shape thereof, has no
meaningful structural or functional relevance to the T-shaped
connecting element disclosed by Ellinwood. Although Bischof’s
connecting element is somewhat more pertinent, its structure
and function still differ markedly from those of Ellinwood’s
connecting element. The friction-reducing rationale advanced
by the examiner to support the combination of these two
references is quite strained, and highlights the impermissible
hindsight-driven impetus for the combination. Moreover, even
if Ellinwood and Bischof were combined in the manner proposed,
the result would still not respond to the limitation in claim
18 requiring “at least two” substantially vertical support
members attached to an underside of the top element or the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007