Appeal 2007-1214
Application 10/272,270
To summarize, because claim 1 differs from the prior art only in the
substitution of one functionally equivalent spring for another, we agree with
the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have considered claim 1
obvious in view of Buckley and the apparatus depicted in Figure 4. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over that prior art.
Because they were not argued separately, claims 2 and 4-13 fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
With respect to claim 3, Appellants argue that the combination of
Figure 4 and Buckley “does not result in a conveying apparatus which
comprises rectangular coil springs. This is due to the fact that, while
Buckley discloses circular, oval and triangular coil springs, he does not
disclose rectangular coil springs” (id. at 11).
We do not find this argument persuasive. As discussed above, when
claim 3 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
relevant portions of the Specification, it encompasses the springs disclosed
by Buckley. As also discussed above, one of ordinary skill would have
considered Buckley’s springs to be useful in the device depicted in Figure 4.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have
considered it obvious to use springs encompassed by claim 3 in the device of
Figure 4. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 3.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 10,
and 11 over the prior art depicted in Figure 3 in view of Buckley.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-13 over
the prior art depicted in Figure 4 in view of Buckley.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013