Appeal No. 2007-0507
Application 10/737,051
Appellant argues that even assuming a prima facie case for obviousness has
been made, it has been rebutted because the claimed invention achieves new and
unexpected results (Br. 16; Reply Br. 4). Cf. Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161,
82 USPQ2d at 1691 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1395). However, the
first result asserted to have been unexpected, i.e., increased stability (Br. 16), not
only would have been expected, it would have provided the motivation for
modifying Ohgami to employ more than one boss. As for the other asserted
unexpected results, i.e., decreasing the amount of lifting force and improving the
sliding motion of the lifter (id.), Appellant has not explained why these alleged
advantages, assuming they in fact occur, would have been unexpected.
For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1
for obviousness over Ohgami. The rejection is also being affirmed with respect to
independent claims 20 and 29, as to which Appellant repeats the arguments made
with respect to claim 1.
Appellant separately argues the merits of dependent claims 2, 4, 39, and 41.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, specifies that the retention structure of the
bosses and the mating retention structure of the lifter comprise “angled abutment
surfaces.” This limitation is satisfied for the reasons given above in the discussion
of claims 7 and 17. The rejection is therefore affirmed as to claim 2.
The rejection of claim 4, which depends on claim 2 and specifies that the
angled abutment surfaces are substantially parallel to one another and substantially
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013