Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
angle is a result-effective variable. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). As a consequence, one
of ordinary skill following the teachings of the applied
references would not have been led to vary the angle in order to
determine an optimum range of values therefor. Cf. In re Huang,
100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(since
prior art taught that polyurethane layer absorbs shock, obvious
to experiment to obtain the optimum range of thickness for shock
absorption).
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing rejection of
claim 17 as being unpatentable over Sederberg in view of Ramun.
Conclusion
The standing rejection of claims 1-12, 14-17, 19 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed as to claims 1-12, 14-16,
19 and 20, but is reversed as to claim 17.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007