Appeal No. 2003-1476 Page 6
Application No. 09/291,983
claim 1. First, David provides local arcuate portions, not sharp bends or corners at the
bases of the shanks 25, 26 and the examiner has not pointed to any evidence, either in
David or elsewhere, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention would have recognized stress concentrations at the bases of the shanks as a
problem. Moreover, even if such a problem in David’s frame construction were
recognized in the prior art, the examiner has supplied no evidence that one skilled in
the art would have solved such problem by providing an arcuate portion as called for in
claim 1.
In light of the above, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
being unpatentable over David in view of Wells and Official Notice. It also follows that
we cannot sustain the like rejection of claims 3-9, 16 and 23 depending therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007