Ex Parte Bicek et al - Page 11

                Appeal 2007-2563                                                                             
                Application 10/058,640                                                                       


                band.  In Dang, the only structures present in the W-shaped elements which                   
                form the serpentine band are the struts.  The wishbone connector legs                        
                “overlap” with the struts.  Thus, the connector’s leg is also a strut.  In other             
                words, the serpentine bands actually consist only of struts.  In our opinion,                
                the claim language does not exclude the serpentine struts from serving a dual                
                function as the legs of the connector.                                                       

                Obviousness over Dang in view of Dinh                                                        
                      Claims 8, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                         
                obvious over Dang in view of Dinh (Answer 7).                                                
                      Obviousness requires a teaching that all elements of the claimed                       
                invention are found in the prior art and “a reason that would have prompted                  
                a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the              
                way the claimed new invention does” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.                   
                Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).                                                 
                      We agree with Appellants that Dinh “does nothing to address the                        
                failure of Dang to teach or suggest all of the elements of the instant claims”               
                (Br. 14).  Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 8, 9, and 17.                             










                                                     11                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013