Appeal No. 96-3024
Application 08/183,856
that it comprises a plurality of plate-like elements which are
hinged to one another. The sprockets 6, 7 and the chain 5 of
Hardy serve to (1) move the flexible portion 10 of Hardy’s bed to
the point where it hangs over, and flexes downwardly from, the
rear of the truck in order to partially discharge the cargo on
the bed and (2) thereafter tilt the rigid portion or “deck” 9 to
an inclined position in order to discharge the remainder of the
cargo.
The mere fact that, as a broad proposition, the ramp 26 of
Stoll and the bed 9 on the dumping body of Hardy are both used on
vehicles such as trucks does not serve as proper motivation for
combining the teachings of these two references as the examiner
apparently believes. Instead, it is well settled that it is the
teachings of the prior art taken as a whole which must provide
the motivation or suggestion to combine the references. See
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051,
5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and Interconnect Planning
Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Here, there is simply no suggestion or motivation which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to single
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007