Ex Parte LATTIN et al - Page 9




             Appeal No. 2001-0661                                                               9              
             Application No. 08/480,232                                                                        


             specific difference in flexural rigidity called for in claim 26.  Hence, the standing  § 103      
             rejection of these claims based on Sibalis cannot be sustained.                                   
                   Claims 23 and 25 depend from claim 21 and add that the flexible means has a                 
             flexural rigidity of less than about 0.75 x 10-3 kg-m2/rad, and of less than about 0.45 x 10-3    
             kg-m2/rad, respectively.  On page 10 of the main brief (Paper No. 17), appellants observe         
             that (1) claims 2-6, 22-26, 35-39 and 51-56 require a flexural rigidity defined by the            
             formula EI = (WL2)/(22), (2) no mention of flexural rigidity is found in Sibalis, and (3) the     
             claim terminology removes the presently claimed invention from the relative term                  
             contention of the examiner.  Merely pointing out a claim limitation without specifically          
             explaining why that claim language would not have been obvious at the time of the                 
             invention to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of the applied reference  
             does not constitute a separate argument in favor of patentability.  Accordingly, we               
             consider that claims 23 and 25 have not been separately argued apart from claim 21, and           
             on that basis we will sustain the standing  § 103 rejection thereof.3                             

                   3In any event, the rejection is sound.  In this regard, it is clear that Sibalis            
             recognizes the flexibility of the applicator to be a result effective variable for preventing     
             loosening of the applicator from a user’s skin (see, for example, column 3, lines 1-39).          
             The determination of an optimum or workable value of an art recognized result effective           
             variable is ordinarily considered to be within the ambit of ordinary skill in the art in the      
             absence of a showing of criticality of the parameter in question.  See In re Woodruff,            
             919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d                
             272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105                  
             USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).  In that no evidence of criticality is of record, the                  
             teachings of Sibalis would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the               
                                                                                     (continued...)            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007