Appeal 2007-2783
Reexamination 90/005,509
Patent 5,533,499
one with at least ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the assertion is illogical
in that the more separation there is from one resilient member to one edge
the less room, not more, is left to accommodate a second resilient member.
Moreover, the illustration in Figure 1 of the patentee’s specification
indicates that a greater-than-width separation from an edge is not necessary
to accommodate a second resilient member, since the separation shown is
evidently less than the width of a resilient band. Further still, the patentee
points to nothing in the specification which indicates that having two
resilient bands provides an advantage over having just one resilient band,
and no declaration testimony has been submitted in that regard. In essence,
the patentee is relying on advantages not indicated in its specification and
unestablished by extrinsic evidence, and also on features unclaimed.
The patentee asserts that Iriarte nowhere suggests that the resilient
member should be separated from an edge of the truss by more than the
width of the resilient member. For reasons discussed above, the patentee has
not shown that the Examiner failed to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claims 19, 20, 23, 24, 26-32, and 34.
With regard to the second argument, the specification nowhere
describes what benefits or advantages can be achieved by having the
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013