Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 9
Application No. 08/693,985
With regard to this difference, the examiner determined
(final rejection, p. 4) that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Snyder to "include an axle pivotally secured to
a mounting means on the forward portion of spring 21 in view
of Hayes's pivotal connection 9 between an axle and spring in
order to mount the spring rockably on the vehicle axle for
absorbing overload."
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-12; reply brief, pp.
3-5) that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
Obviousness is tested by "what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). But it "cannot be established by combining
the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting the
combination." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). And
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007