Appeal No. 96-0563
Application 07/540,839
combination, we note that to justify combining reference
teachings in support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 it
is not necessary that a device shown in one reference be
capable of being physically inserted into the device shown in
the other or that the prior art suggest expressly the changes
or possible improvements the appellants have made. It is only
necessary that knowledge clearly present in the prior art was
applied. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ
1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It is our opinion that the examiner
has properly applied only knowledge which is clearly present
in the prior art as evidenced by the patent to Bubb in the
rejection of claims 30 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, and we shall thus sustain this rejection.
Clearly, the motivation for making the modification of Plungis
to have an open end would have been for the well known and
self-evident purpose of permitting lateral access to a
workpiece that is axially inaccessible, and the manner of
making the wrench of Plungis to have an open end is also self-
evident, as well as suggested by Bubb. We note that the law
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007