Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
the mechanism of Lay since they are both equivalent in function”
(answer, page 8). We find no basis whatsoever which would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to any such modification of
the spring mechanisms of Lay, or to a conclusion that the spring
mechanisms of Lay and the insert support mechanisms of Yeh and
Kaszubinski are in any way “equivalent in function.” Simply
stated, if either of the examiner’s proposed substitutions
indicated above were to be made it would render Lay inoperable
for its intended purpose as described in column 2, lines 37-42,
thereof, wherein it is indicated that when the container is
opened, the disc envelopes (30) are “rotated through the bias of
spring member appendages 22 into individual differing angles.”
For that reason, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 50, 51 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lay in view of Yeh or Kaszubinski.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
7, 33 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Cheng in view of Kazen and Hurson, we are in complete agreement
with appellants’ arguments as presented in the brief (page 7-9)
and in the two reply briefs. Any reading of the Cheng patent
would have made it immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007