Appeal 2007-1914
Application 10/378,641
the remaining cushioning element from the counterpart cushioning elements on the
other end of the shackle bolt. The Appellant provides no argument or definition of
“spacer section” from the Specification that would distinguish the claimed spacer
section from the spacer section of Borst. As such, we sustain this rejection of
independent claim 81. The Appellant provides no arguments for separate
patentability of dependent claims 87 and 91. Thus, these claims fall with claim 81.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Rejection of claim 90 as unpatentable over Borst
Claim 90 depends from claim 81 and recites that the sleeve nut includes a
“cup-shaped head” and the grommet includes “a curved surface at one end
complementary in shape to the cup-shaped head.” The Examiner found that
because the Appellant fails to provide a criticality for the claimed cup-shaped head
and curved surface, it would have been obvious to modify Borst’s sleeve nut and
grommet as claimed “so as to improve operability and to facilitate assembly”
(Answer 13). The Examiner further stated that the modification “represents an
obvious change in shape in the components, considered to be within the level of
ordinary skill in the art” (Answer 14, citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ
47 (CCPA 1966)).
The Examiner provides no basis for the assertion that by modifying the
sleeve nut as claimed, it would improve operability and facilitate assembly. In
particular, the Examiner points to no interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the
effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace;
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013