Appeal 2007-1792
Application 10/050,834
With respect to claim 4, Examiner correctly found that Scheublein, Jr.
discloses “the attaching means 95 is external threads on an external surface of the
middle portion A14 of the housing 91” (Answer 7) (citing Scheublein, Jr., col. 5,
lines 53-55). Appellant concedes that Scheublein, Jr. and Maughan “seem to deal
with the use of external threads on the external surface of the middle portion of the
housing for attachment means for the device” (Br. 6).
The Examiner found that Scheublein, Jr. teaches all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 4 except for a fastening means for fastening the retaining member 104
in the housing 91 (Answer 5-6). Examiner found that “Maughan teaches, in Figure
8, a ball joint comprising a fastening means 260, 262 for fastening a retaining
member 244 in a housing 208 . . . (col. 7, lines 61-62)” (Answer 6). We agree
with the Examiner that the cited references disclose each of the limitations of
claims 1 and 4 of the instant application.
One of skill in the art would have been able to combine the fastening means
of Maughan with the ball joint of Scheublein, Jr. using methods known in the art at
the time the invention was made. Moreover, each of the elements of Scheublein,
Jr. and Maughan combined by the Examiner performs the same function when
combined as it does in the prior art. Thus, such a combination would have yielded
predictable results. See Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ
449, 453 (1976).
Claim 1 and 4 were combinations which only unite old elements with no
change in their respective functions and which yield predictable results. Thus, the
claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. In addition,
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013