Appeal No. 2006-0790
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,117
endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the
reference is not within the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
5 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, the appellant’s recited purpose for the “gas spring”
element recited in appealed claim 1 is “to assist in stably
retaining said tread base in said second position relative to
10 said upright structure with said tread base in said second
position [i.e., closed position].” Furthermore, the only
disclosure in the ‘624 patent under reexamination with respect
to a “gas spring” associating the tread base with the upright
structure is found at column 15, lines 3-28. (FF17.) There,
15 the inventors disclose that the gas spring 505 is part of a lift
assist assembly. (FF18.) In particular, the inventors disclose
the function or purpose of the gas spring as follows: “The force
and the torque (TF) exerted by the spring 505 is selected so
that the resulting required lifting force (LF) may be nominal
20 (e.g. 5 to 20 pounds).” (FF19; column 15, lines 22-24.)
Because Teague’s gas springs are said to act against
“continued movement” of the rotating body to its storage
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007