Appeal No. 1998-2096
Application No. 08/586,966
teaching or suggestion in Chandler that a second curved lip
portion positioned forwardly of the first curved lip portion
and with the first lip portion extending transversely outward
from the body portion a greater distance than the second
curved lip would further facilitate rotation of the anchor in
the ground. We must point out the mere fact that the prior
art could be modified would not have made the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Absent
the appellants’ own disclosure we can think of no reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
make the modifications to Chandler’s ground anchor proposed by
the examiner. The evidentiary record before us is totally
devoid of any suggestion or motivation that would have led one
of ordinary skill to make such modifications. The subjective
opinion of the examiner as to what would have been obvious,
without evidence in support thereof, is not a basis upon which
the legal conclusion of obviousness may be reached. Note In
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007