Appeal No. 2004-1317
Application No. 10/143,377
recited in claims 13, 14, 15 and 24. Indeed, we find appellants'
argument regarding the hog ringing of claim 15 to be puzzling
inasmuch as Kelly specifically discloses the use of hog rings
(see column 3, line 58). We also note that appellants' specifi-
cation attaches no criticality to the use of specific securing
elements. We further note that appellants' specification teaches
that "[t]his method of compressing the width of the spring unit
10 prior to the location of the web or webs of insulator material
being applied may be used regardless of which type of securing
element is used" (page 15, first paragraph, last sentence).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection. Claims 1-11 and 16-22 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kelly in view of Wunderlich. As acknowledged by appellants, the
only substantive distinction between allowed claims 1-11 and
16-22, and rejected claims 12-15 and 23-25, is that the allowed
claims provide for securing two webs of insulator material to the
spring units. In the words of appellants:
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007