Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
(quoting Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8,
53 USPQ2d 1580, 1587 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
In the instant case, circular coil springs were known in the prior art to
have the disadvantage of lower spring rates along their longitudinal and
lateral axes, requiring additional leaf springs when used in vibratory
conveyors (Specification 4), whereas, as Appellants admit, “they are
relatively inexpensive and have an infinite shelf life” (Brief 8). Elastomeric
springs were known in the art to be advantageous because of their higher
lateral spring rates (Specification 5), but suffered from difficulties with
respect to consistent manufacture and durability (id. at 6-7).
Thus, each of the alternatives of record had known advantages and
disadvantages. However, the record does not provide any direct teaching
away from the use of ovoid coil springs in vibratory conveying apparatuses.
Therefore, based on the prior art of record, we agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill would have considered both coil and elastomeric
springs to be useful in the device depicted in Appellants’ Figure 4.
Appellants argue that, when applied to vibratory conveyors, ovoid coil
springs avoid the use of leaf springs required with circular coil springs, as
well as avoiding the manufacturing and aging problems associated with
elastomeric springs (Br. 8-9). Appellants argue that “[t]he present invention
was therefore developed to satisfy the problems experienced with both
circular coil springs and elastomeric springs,” and that the use of ovoid coil
springs “is more than a matter of mere design choice” (id. at 9).
We do not find this argument persuasive. As stated above, “[i]n
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013