Appeal 2006-1417
Application 09/326,405
ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated any savings in cost
associated with replacing an aluminum frame with a periphery of hook and
loop fasteners.
Appellant contends that the references are not combinable because
Kehne mounts the screen on the exterior portion of the window whereas
Lazarek mounts the screen to the interior portion of the window. However,
it is well settled that it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness under
§ 103 that all the features of one reference be incorporated with the features
of another reference. In re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 381, 148 USPQ 197, 200
(CCPA 1966); In re Billingsley, 279 F.2d 689, 691, 126 USPQ 370, 372
(CCPA 1960). The relevant question is what would the collective teachings
of the references have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In the present
case, we are satisfied that the collective teachings of Kehne and Lazarek
would have suggested the use of hook and loop fasteners for removably
connecting the screen of Kehne to the fixed frame. While Appellant
maintains that Kehne teaches a permanently mounted screen, we agree with
the Examiner that Kehne’s disclosure of supporting a screen “in a more or
less permanent manner” would have suggested a screen that is ultimately
removable (see col. 1, ll. 60-62). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner
that it was notoriously well known in the art to provide removable screens in
the fixed frame of a window.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007