Appeal No. 2000-0356 Page 18
Application No. 08/825,424
to provide damping in the spring section and does not provide
ridges to extend the first rigid section a distance beyond the
edge of the support member (brief, pp. 5-6). The Examiner
does not address this argument. More explanation for
modifying NHK Spring is needed than just the fact that Karam
shows the ridges extending beyond the edge, because Karam does
not teach stiffening a rigid section. There may be reasons
why it would have been obvious to stiffen the interior of the
second portion of NHK Spring, such as the fact that NHK Spring
already has stamped ridges along the edges, but these reasons
are not stated in the rejection. Absent an accounting for
these limitations and arguments, I conclude that the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness and,
therefore, concur in the result of reversing the rejection.
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
)
INTERFERENCESDOUGLAS R. MILLETT
IBM CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007