Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
skill to discover the optimum or workable range of the angle
between the cross blade and the tie plate. Based on the above,
the examiner concluded that claim 17 is not patentable. We do
not agree.
First, we are apprised of nothing in Sederberg that teaches,
suggests or implies that the shim 96 is used for the purpose of
adjusting the angle between the cross blade and the tie plate,
notwithstanding the examiner’s apparent position to the contrary.
Second, even if Sederberg did teach that the cross blade may be
situated at an angle to the tie plate, the principle of
discovering the optimum value of a variable does not apply where
the parameter optimized is not recognized in the art as being a
result-effective variable. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 621, 195
USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977). Thus, “routine experimentation” does
not defeat patentability unless it comes within the teachings of
the art. In re Fay, 347 F.2d 597, 602, 146 USPQ 47, 51 (CCPA
1965). In the present case, assuming for the sake of argument
that Sederberg intended to arrange the cross plate 94 at an angle
relative to tie plate 90, variation of that angle cannot be said
to have been an obvious matter of “routine experimentation”
because neither Sederberg nor Ramun teaches or suggests that such
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007