Appeal No. 96-3033
Application 08/139,574
examiner appears to assume that such means would be incorporated
into Reed in a manner that would result in the claimed subject
matter, i.e., by providing a pin receiving hole in Reed’s
elongate plate 20 for receipt of the pin. From our perspective,
however, it is just as likely that Church’s teachings would be
incorporated into Reed by providing a pin receiving opening not
in the plate 20 but rather in the doorjamb at a location above
the plate in its latch position in order to block removal of the
plate from the slot 22.
Where prior art references require a selective combination
to render obvious a claimed invention, there must be some reason
for the combination other than hindsight gleaned from the
invention disclosure, Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774
F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the fact
situation before us, we are unable to agree with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
by the teachings of Church to incorporate the pin and opening
restraint means thereof into the drop bolt system of Reed in a
manner which would produce the subject matter of claim 5.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007