Appeal No. 1999-0713
Application 08/325,629
The examiner’s conclusion here is well founded.
Partridge’s description (see column 2, lines 18 through 20) of
the self-evident ease with which the tie can be applied would
have provided the artisan with ample suggestion to use such
ties in place of Puno’s wires 120, in conjunction with
suitably sized and disposed slots in Puno’s rod support 116,
to facilitate the securement of the rod support to rod 18.
Thus, the fair teachings of Puno and Partridge belie the
various lack of motivation arguments advanced by the
appellant.
The related contention that the age of the Puno and
Partridge references demonstrates non-obviousness (see page 8
in the reply brief) is also unconvincing. The mere age of
references is not indicative of the unobviousness of their
combination, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge
of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the
problem. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335
(CCPA 1977). The record in this application contains no such
evidence.
In light of the above, the differences between the
subject matter recited in claim 15 and the prior art are such
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007