Appeal No. 1998-1937
Application No. 08/518,509
closure.
Concerning the examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to have “provided” tension springs in Carson to
afford easy lifting of the door when opening, it is not clear
whether the examiner proposes to add counterbalance springs in
Carson to supplement the springs 44 of Carson’s hinge
mechanisms 26, or whether the examiner proposes to replace
springs 44 of Carson with counterbalance springs like those of
Holmes. In either case, we do not view the combined teachings
of the references as suggesting the incorporation of
counterbalance springs in Carson between the lid stays and the
inner lateral wall surfaces of the cabinet. In the first
place, given that Carson’s invention is directed to a
relatively lightweight application of an overhead door as
compared to that of Holmes, there is no apparent need for
a complex counterbalance arrangement like that of Holmes in
Carson. Further, assuming that the artisan would have been
motivated to incorporate the counterbalance teachings of
Holmes
in Carson, we consider that such incorporation would involve
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007