Appeal No. 2000-1592
Application 08/661,220
Additionally, the examiner takes the view at pages 4 and 5 of the
answer that it would have been a mere design choice to have
reduced from 4 to 3 the number of support points in Léman, the
examiner urging that the omission of an element would have been
obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
We do not consider any of these arguments persuasive because
no evidence of obviousness has been provided and, in our
judgment, we are unpersuaded of the examiner's view as a mere
matter of design choice to omit one of the four labeled elements
since we remain unconvinced that the function of one of them
would not have been necessary. We are therefore in agreement
generally with appellant's arguments set forth initially at pages
4 and 5 of the principal brief on appeal and repeated in latter
portions of this brief, as well as the paragraph bridging pages 1
and 2 of the reply brief. As stated at the top of page 5 of the
principal brief on appeal, "it clearly would not be obvious to
eliminate one of these four points [3,3 and 5,5 in Léman] because
this would interfere with their separate and distinct functions."
Notwithstanding these considerations, we sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 18 on appeal for
reasons independent of the positions of the examiner and do so as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007