Appeal No. 2000-2025
Application 08/953,878
prevent the unwanted bolt rotation.
Alternatively, page 1, lines 14-29 of Harris
demonstrate that it is known to prevent unwanted bolt
rotation by providing the shank of a bolt with a square
cross-section that is forced into an opening of a
circular cross-section, whereby the bolt becomes anchored
in the hole. Accordingly, in view of this portion of
Harris one would have found it obvious to substitute such
bolt-nut arrangement for the bolt (39) of Heth, in order
to provide for a more secure connection between the
fluter [sic] and the core member.
And in view of Crigger one would have found it
obvious to use a ribbed shank in place of Harris square
shank, since each would result in preventing the unwanted
bolt rotation.
After fully considering the record in light of the
arguments presented in appellant’s supplemental appeal brief
and reply brief, and in the examiner’s answer, we conclude
that the rejection is not well taken.
It is well settled that
Obviousness cannot be established by combining the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention, absent some teaching or suggestion supporting
the combination. Under section 103, teachings of
references can be combined only if there is some
suggestion or incentive to do so.
ACS Hospital Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present
case, we do not consider that Harris and/or Crigger would have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007