Appeal No. 2004-2161 Page 7
Application No. 10/028,875
Dependent claims 15 and 16 stand rejected as being obvious3 in view of the
combined teachings of Beals and Greenheck. In this rejection the examiner finds all of
the subject matter recited in the two claims to be disclosed or taught by Beals, except
for applying the force to the bendable piece of material by means of a tool. However,
the examiner takes the position that to do so would have been obvious in view of the
teachings of Greenheck because “such an arrangement improves the mechanical
advantage” (final rejection, page 5). The only argument raised by the appellants with
regard to this rejection is that Beals fails to disclose or teach all of the limitations found
in claim 1 and this deficiency is not overcome by Greenheck.
As explained above, it is our view that Beals anticipates the subject matter of
claim 1, and considering Beals in the light of Section 103 does not cause us to alter this
conclusion. The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s combining of Greenheck
with Beals in order to meet the terms of claims 15 and 16. We therefore conclude that
Beals and Greenheck establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in claims 15 and 16, and we will sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
Both rejections are sustained.
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007