Appeal No. 96-1058
Application 08/211,143
focussing on the obviousness of the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art rather than on the
obviousness of the claimed invention as a whole as § 103
requires. See, e.g., Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies,
Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1383, 231 USPQ 81, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1986),
cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987).
Like the appellant, we think that the most which is
suggested by these references is “a structure in which the upper
end of the Nordtvedt stocking would be provided with a frame from
which the stocking could be suspended from a building” (brief,
pp. 6-7). The claims, of course, require more. Independent2
claim 8 and independent claim 15, from which all of the other
claims on appeal depend, require a plurality of rigid connecting
means, each of which is secured to a respective bracing ring.
Nothing in either Nordtvedt or Schuett would have suggested
providing more than a single connecting means between the
2The appellant states, “Simply suspending the stocking of
Nordtvedt from a building using a rigid frame at the top end does
not result in the claimed structure nor does such provide the new
and unobvious results obtained by applicant’s claimed structure”
(brief, p. 7). Thus, the appellant does not appear to contend
that the means or, in appellant’s words, “rigid frame” by which
Schuett suspends the iron ring F and sack F’ does not constitute
“rigid connecting means.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007