Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 8
Application No. 10/651,205
approximately 94 degrees. (Appellants’ Brief, p. 15). The appellants, however, do
not provide any evidence as to the criticality of making the angle between the first
mounting surface and the base approximately 94 degrees, nor do they provide any
evidence showing that the use of an angle at 94 degrees would result in a
difference in function or give unexpected results over the obtuse angle shown in
Rinderer. As such, we agree with the examiner that providing an angle of
approximately 94 degrees between the first mounting surface and the base would
have been obvious. Haynes Intern., Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 1577 n.3,
28 USPQ2d 1652, 1655 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[W]hen the difference between the
claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable,
then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in range or
value is minor”), citing In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934,
1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2.
Rejection of claims 4, 8-16, 20, 21, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner has determined that Rinderer discloses all of the elements of
claims 4, 8-16, 20, 21, 29, and 30, except for an adjustable brace assembly. The
examiner relies on Harris to show a brace assembly for securing an outlet box to
supports, comprising telescopic adjustable members each having a mounting
surface with a fastener hole and prongs to further secure the brace to the supports.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007