Appeal 2007-4070
Application 10/625,531
The Examiner found that Harima discloses the invention of claims 6
and 9 but for showing the second section of the wire rest extending toward
the third wire (FF 14). The Examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to orient the second section of the wire rest toward the third wire,
i.e., to extend externally of the annular bridge, to further exhibit anti-sinking
effect (FF 15). Appellant argued (prior to the Examiner submitting the
annotated Harima Figure 1 in the Answer) that not only was the structure
which the Examiner considered as the wire rest unclear in Harima Figure 1,
but also that Harima did not support the modification proposed by the
Examiner (FF 18).
First, as discussed above, Appellant has not disputed the Examiner's
finding that the circled structures in annotated Harima Figure 1 discloses the
wire rests recited in any of claims 1-5 or 7-8. Second, the Examiner
explicitly identified the teaching in Harima relied upon to support her
position (FF 15). We observe that the Examiner's finding corresponds to
Appellant's disclosure of the function of wire rest 17 (FF8). The burden then
shifted to Appellant to explain why the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness is in error, e.g., why the explicitly identified teaching in Harima
did not support the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness or why positioning
the second section of the wire rest of the claimed retainer external of the
annular bridge was outside of ordinary skill in the art or contrary to the
teachings of the art. Thus, Appellant's unsupported assertion that "there is
no teaching reference to support the modification proposed by the
Examiner" (Br. at 4; FF 18) is contradicted by the teachings of Harima. On
this record, Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error by the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013