Appeal No. 2002-1778 Page 9
Application No. 09/285,078
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 2
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claim 2 adds to parent claim 1 the further limitation that the band
comprises a plastic.
In our view, since Jacks is silent as to the material used to form his main spring
clip 1, the choice of such material is left up to the person of ordinary skill in the art and
that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have made Jacks' main spring clip from a plastic material.
Under similar circumstances, it has been determined that the mere substitution
of glass for wood would not support the patentability of a display case. Substitution of
materials will usually not, in and of itself, create patentability if the same purpose or
function could be achieved through the use of old and well known materials (in this
case, plastic). This applies even if the substituted material is more satisfactory,
cheaper, or more durable. Substitution of materials to be patentable should bring about
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007