Appeal No. 2002-2017
Application No. 09/567,457
specification, page 1, lines 29 and 30) and to the "separately
manufactured" alternative taught by appellants (specification,
page 3, lines 27 through 29). By itself, we readily perceive
that the Kincaid patent would not have been suggestive of an
"integrally formed" ball link and stabilizer bar as now claimed.
It is for the preceding reasons that the rejection on appeal
cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
The examiner should assess the obviousness of the claimed
subject matter based upon the collective knowledge in the art of
a fastened together alternative (prior art acknowledgment in
appellants' specification, page 1, or Kincaid2) and the known
integrally formed alternative as evidenced by Schmid (U.S. Patent
No. 3,740,986; Figures 12 through 16), of record in the
application.
2 Appellants' view of Kincaid as seeking to "avoid a single
piece structure" (reply brief, page 2) seems to impliedly
acknowledge a single piece structure as an alternative.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007