Appeal No. 2002-1352
Application 09/051,975
the part of the artisan rather than lack thereof. See, In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226, USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, in combining the teachings of Stach ‘415 and Midling, we
are of the opinion that an artisan would have undoubtedly
provided a jig to hold the wheel parts together during the
welding process.
As for appellants’ contention that Stach ‘415 does not have
a weld arrangement like that required in independent claim 18 on
appeal, we note that the weld joints (S1) and (S3) seen in Figure
6 of Stach ‘415 are each circumferential weld joints and clearly
include at least a portion of the first weld joint (S1) and at
least a portion of the second weld joint (S3) which are
non-parallel.
While we have fully considered the arguments advanced by
appellants, we are not convinced thereby that the examiner's
conclusion of obviousness as it applies to independent claims 9
and 18 on appeal is in error. Thus, for the above reasons, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007