Appeal No. 2005-2529
Application No. 10/154,140
Consequently, we find that it is reasonable to conclude that the
scope of rubbers and plastics that can function as nut F of
Fenton would substantially overlap the class of rubbers and
plastics that can perform the claimed function. Appellants have
not presented argument or evidence to the contrary.
Appellants' argument that a bike manufacturer in the 19th
century would have chosen a metal or wood for nut F of Fenton
misses the point that the test for obviousness under § 103 is
what one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered
obvious at the time of filing the present application.
Appellants also contend that "[t]he Examiner has still failed
to provide a reasonable motivation for modifying the apparatus of
Fenton to reduce the strength of the material" (page 3 of Reply
Brief, second paragraph). However, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that the asserted metal of Fenton could
be replaced with a lighter and less costly rubber or plastic
material without compromising the strength of the nut. In any
event, Fenton does not disclose that any particular strength is
necessary for nut F. In essence, appellants have advanced no
compelling reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have considered it obvious to form nut F of Fenton with the
rubbers and plastics used in the present invention.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007