Appeal 2007-1448
Application 10/601,325
Both Appellants’ device and that of Wisniewski deal with a biasing problem
in a clip designed to hold a member in place on the clip using only the inherent
biasing force of the clip material. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR at 1742. Thus, to hold
the gettering loop in Pohle in place using the resilient bias of its support legs 26
rather than by a connection weld, as taught by Wisniewski at biasing portions 24,
24, would have been an obvious modification because at the time of the invention,
using the radial bias of a portion of a clip to hold another element on the clip was
known, as evidenced by Wisniewski.
The Appellants do not provide a convincing argument as to the separate
patentability of claims 2-7, 11-13 that depend from claim 1, which is the sole
independent claim among those claims.1 Therefore, claims 2-7, 11-13 fall with
claim 1. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
1 Appellants explicitly state “[c]laims 1 through 7 and 11 through 13 stand or fall
together” (Br.4) Claim 12 was rejected separately under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with
the additional reference to Shaffer, but Appellants did not direct any separate
merits argument to it. (Br.8)
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013