Appeal No. 1999-2003
Application No. 08/751,545
the occurrence of a small displacement * of the HDA 9" and a
portion with a large spring constant for "buffering an absorbing
the impact caused by external disturbances." Even though
Hishinuma discloses a single member with different portions to
accomplish the different types of shock absorption, it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan that using different spring
constants would apply to the separate members of Gatti and
Koyanagi as well. The level of the skilled artisan should not be
underestimated. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ
771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellants further argue that Hishinuma teaches (Brief,
pages 6-7) a single member and fails to teach both a maintaining
member and a supporting member. Appellants also assert that
because Hishinuma discloses a single member for both types of
external forces, Hishinuma teaches away from the combination. We
disagree. As explained supra, the skilled artisan would have
found Hishinuma's disclosure of multiple spring constants to deal
with different types of force to apply to the separate elements
disclosed by Gatti and Koyanagi as well as to Hishinuma's unitary
element. The teachings found in Hishinuma are not limited to the
specific embodiment disclosed therein. Thus, we find
unpersuasive appellants' arguments for representative claim 1 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007