Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
coil spring require it to have an ovoid- or rectangular-shaped coil
surrounding the longitudinal axis, and the lateral axis of the spring is
oriented vertically.
2. PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on admitted prior art depicted in Figures 3 and 4
of the application, and on the following reference:
Buckley US 274,715 Mar. 27, 1883
3. OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1-3, 10, AND 11
Claims 1-3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the vibratory conveying apparatus depicted in Figure 3,
admitted by Appellants as being prior art (Specification 1: 22-23), in view of
Buckley (Answer 3).
The Examiner states that Figure 3 discloses all the limitations of claim
1, “except for the use of ovoid springs” (Final Rejection 2 (February 12,
2006)). To meet this deficiency, the Examiner notes that “Buckley teaches
the interchangeability of ovoid springs and coil springs” (id.). The Examiner
concludes that one of ordinary skill would have considered it obvious “to
use ovoid springs as such are well known and the choice of a particular
spring type is merely a design choice based on environment, cost, assembly
requirements, and availability as well as desired spring characteristics like
spring rate, durability and weight” (id.).
Appellants argue that, “contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Buckley
does not teach that ovoid coil springs and circular coil springs are
interchangeable. At most, Buckley teaches that ovoid coil springs and
circular coil springs were both in existence prior to the filing date of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013