Appeal No. 2000-0356 Page 6
Application No. 08/825,424
spring section,” (Final Rejection at 4), the examiner makes
the following assertion.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have been motivated to provide the
suspension of NHK with the ridges as taught by Karam
so that they extend over an edge of the support
member and terminate prior to the spring section
since ridges are taught to increase the rigidity of
a suspension.
(Id.) The appellant argues, "none of these references teach
the use of permanent ridges to extend the spring section a
distance beyond the end of the support member." (Appeal Br.
at 7.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key
legal question -- what is the invention claimed?” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, independent claims 40 and
48 specify in pertinent part the following limitations: "the
first rigid beam section having a flat planar base with a
stamped ridge rising above the base and extending along an
interior portion of its length from the first portion
overlying the support member, through the second portion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007