Appeal No. 2002-0487
Application No. 09/377,371
suggestion for the substitution is the known self-evident
advantage of using a ratchet to tighten a strap, i.e., the
mechanical advantage the ratchet obtains over a simple buckle as
disclosed in Stokke.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to make
such a substitution, and that the hold down device of Dickerson
is from non-analogous art. With regard to motivation, the
appellants argue that the combination is based on an
impermissible hindsight analysis by the examiner. We disagree.
As noted above, we are of the view that there is a suggestion to
combine based on the self-evident advantage of a ratchet over the
simple buckle of Stokke. We are familiar with the Winner1 case
cited by appellants, but we do not believe it is apposite here.
In Winner, the ratcheting mechanism was demonstrably less secure
than the prior art dead-bolt. That is why the district court
determined the substitution would not have been obvious. Here,
the ratchet is self-evidently superior in tightening ability.
Whether a reference in the prior art is "analogous" is a
fact question. In re Clay, 966, F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Two criteria have evolved for determining
1 Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340,
53 USPQ2d 1580(Fed. Cir. 2002).
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007