Appeal 2006-2849
Application 10/310,200
Moreover, the relevant question is not whether Reilly solves the
problem solved by the Appellant but, rather, is whether, because of the
subject matter with which Reilly deals, Reilly logically would have
commended itself to the Appellant’s attention in considering the Appellant’s
problem. See Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061. Reilly discloses
using an actuator inserted into radially spaced apertures in a spindle attached
midway between the ends of an exteriorly threaded orthodontic screw to
spread housings at the ends of the screw (Reilly, col. 2, ll. 9-12; col. 3, l. 66
– col. 4, l. 2). The relevant question is whether, because of that disclosed
subject matter, Reilly logically would have commended itself to the
Appellant’s attention in considering another way to rotate Fox’s exteriorly
threaded screw to spread vehicle chocks at the ends of the screw.
The Appellant argues that Reilly is not reasonably pertinent to the
problem addressed by the Appellant because Reilly’s device is much smaller
than that of the Appellant (Reply Br. 3). That argument is not persuasive
because the principle involved in moving an actuator placed in radially
spaced apertures in a spindle fixed between oppositely threaded portions of a
screw to rotate the screw and thereby cause components at the ends of the
screw to move closer together or farther apart is independent of the size of
the device. Thus, it reasonable appears that Reilly logically would have
commended itself to the Appellant’s attention when considering other ways
to rotate Fox’s screw.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013