Appeal No. 2003-0421
Application No. 09/508,793
is composed of a smaller number of parts and is simpler in
structure, the eyeglass units can be manufactured more easily and
at a lower cost (Nakanishi, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 2).
Appellants do not contest the examiner’s findings from
Teichmann (Brief, page 8, first sentence). However, appellants
argue that there is nothing in either reference to make it
obvious to combine their teachings (Brief, page 7). Appellants
argue that there is no reason for providing a peripheral groove
in the bolt to secure the eyelet axially, but that such a
peripheral groove would only complicate the insertion of bolt 8
in the eyelet because the diameter of the bolt would have to
exceed the inner diameter of the eyelet (Brief, pages 7 and 9-
10).
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly stated by
the examiner (Answer, pages 9-10), motivation for the combination
of references has been identified as providing a hinge for
eyeglasses which does not need any hinge bolts (see Nakanishi,
abstract; col. 1, ll. 5-26; and col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 2).
Furthermore, as explained by the examiner (Answer, page 10),
adding a peripheral groove to the hinge body of Teichmann would
not affect or complicate the insertion of the hinge body into the
eyelet.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007