Appeal No. 2006-2169 Page 12
Application No. 09/899,919
find that the arrangement of the secondary reference offers the second advantage relied
on by the appellant.
In summary, we find that the operation of the blade parts is the same with an
obtuse angle or a right angle. The appellants have failed to show that the change in
angle "result[s] in a difference in function or give unexpected results." In re Rice,
341 F.2d 309, 314, 144 USPQ 476, 480 (CCPA 1965). "Moreover . . . there is no
evidence of commercial success or other secondary considerations. . . ." Electro-
Nucleonics, Inc. v. Mossinghoff, 592 F.Supp. 608, 612, 224 USPQ 432, 434
(D.D.C.1984). For our part, we are persuaded that the differences in angle "between
the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art." Sheckler, 438 F.2d at 1000-01, 168 USPQ at 717. "Such
changes in design . . . are no more than obvious variations consistent with the principles
known in that art." Rice, 341 F.2d at 314, 144 USPQ at 480.
3. Stopper Retaining Portion
The examiner finds "that van Woesik explicitly states that the retention pips 70
engage the walls of the slots 33 (col. 5, lines 67-68)." (Examiner's Answer at 8.)
The appellant argues "that although van Woesik discloses retention pips on the clip,
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007