Appeal No. 96-1882
Application No. 08/214,013
the upper edge of a container. However, Cocu does not disclose
the concentrically disposed first and second support walls and
the radially disposed first and second radial support members
that are required by the claim.
The Barnes reference discloses a toilet seat that is made of
“hard rubber” for the purpose of overcoming certain problems with
wooden seats. The body has an arcuate upper surface and a
concave lower surface. To provide lateral strengthening, the
annular interior chamber is provided with a plurality of radially
oriented webs (7) which span the entire width of the chamber.
It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to construct the claimed
toilet seat in view of the teachings of Cocu and Barnes. We do
not agree.
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified
does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art
suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We fail to
perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either
reference which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Cocu toilet seat such that (1) it had a
substantially annular rigid body with an arcuate upper surface
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007