Appeal No. 2004-1319
Application 09/933,329
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Simply stated, there is no reason or
suggestion in the applied prior art for making the wrench of Fuca
with a uniform outside diameter from its first end to its second
end, as specified in independent claims 1 and 10 on appeal.
Moreover, given the disclosure of Fuca concerning the simplicity
and economy of construction of the wrench therein and use of the
different diameter end portions (25, 26) to accommodate different
size and configuration nuts, there would appear to be little or
no incentive for making such a modification therein.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
which would have been fairly derived from Fuca and Rosenbaum
would not have made the subject matter as a whole of independent
claims 1 and 10 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of appellant’s invention, we must refuse to
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 10, and the
claims which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus,
the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10 through 14 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Fuca and Rosenbaum will not
be sustained.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007