Appeal No. 1999-2103
Application No. 08/734,205
The basis of the examiner's rejection is that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellants' invention to shape the ridges as taught by
Lorme in the cleat of Baylo to increase traction (answer, page
4). For the reasons which follow, we do not agree with the
examiner.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima
facie case of obviousness is established where the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary
skill in the art having those teachings before him to make the
proposed combination or modification. See In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
We recognize that both the rain shoe spike of Baylo
(Figure 5) and the stud of Lorme are intended to reduce or
prevent slippage. However, from our perspective, Lorme
discloses an alternative spike for achieving this purpose.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007