Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
Figures 1-7 and not specifically the device of Figures 10 and 11 relied upon
by the Examiner, together "either by means of friction, engaging screw
threads or by a snap-fit" (Wolfe, col. 5, ll. 11-15). A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have immediately appreciated that, while engaging
screw threads may not be a feasible securement mechanism for the cap
member 24b and cover member 22b of Wolfe's embodiment of Figures 10
and 11, a friction or snap-fit of the cap member 24b to cover member 22b
would improve the device of Figures 10 and 11 in much the same way that
such a securing arrangement improves the device of Figures 1-7. Further,
Appellants have not alleged, much less shown, that such a modification
would yield unpredictable results or present a unique challenge to one of
ordinary skill in the art. We thus conclude Appellant has failed to
demonstrate the Examiner erred in determining the subject matter of claim 9
would have been obvious. The rejection of claim 9 is sustained.
16
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013