Appeal No. 2001-0680
Application No. 09/141,637
stand on the rim thereof (translation, page 3), the examiner’s
contention that it would have been obvious in view of Ritter “to
inwardly extend the seat associated with the Hawkins potty in order
to provide better, wider, user support” (answer, page 5) is
strained. Another reason for our disagreement with the examiner on
this point concerns the examiner’s two stage modification of the
Figure 5 embodiment of Hawkins. Simply put, the examiner’s
reconfiguration of Hawkins wherein the rim of the Figure 5
embodiment is first extended outwardly in view of the Figure 2
embodiment thereof and then extended inwardly in view of Ritter
appears to us to be a hindsight reconstruction based on appellant’s
own teachings rather that anything that is fairly taught by
Hawkins, Ritter and/or Moore.
As a final point, we note that on page 7 of the answer, the
examiner also makes much of the fact that several advantages urged
by appellant for the claimed construction have not specifically
been mentioned in the specification. However, simply because they
have not been included in the specification does not mean that such
advantages need not be considered, as the examiner apparently
believes. See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007