Appeal No. 2005-2529
Application No. 10/154,140
paragraph). Appellants also maintain that "[f]urther evidence
that nut F and handlebar A are metal is shown in the type of fill
used to illustrate these elements in Fig. 2 of Fenton" (id.).
However, notwithstanding that skilled artisans in 1899 may have
chosen metal to form nut F of Fenton, we fully concur with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
filing the present application would have found it obvious to use
rubber or plastic for nut making the nut. We find no fault in
the examiner's reasoning that:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
provide a lighter yet structurally sufficient handlebar
apparatus; to utilize a cheaper or more readily
available material; or to utilize an easier to
manufacture material (molding of plastic is commonly
known to be less costly than molding of metal).
(Sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 of Answer). While Fenton does
not describe the claimed function for the bias member retainer
housing to allow the bias member to enter the cavity of the
handlebar upon application of sufficient force, we agree with the
examiner that the obvious use of a rubber or plastic nut F in
Fenton would inherently result in the recited function.
Appellants' specification and claims do not define any class of
rubber or plastic that is required to perform the claimed
function, or any such class that could reasonably function as
nut F of Fenton and still not perform the claimed function.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007