Appeal No. 96-4021
Application 08/289,300
tubular support member as shown in Hough because it would
simplify the connection by not requiring the additional plate
member [27] as show[n] in Van Seenus” (final rejection, page 3).
As for the second rejection, the examiner concludes
that it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art “to connect the vertical support member portion of [the]
modified Van Seenus [armrest assembly] as disclosed in Rogers so
that in addition to provided [sic, providing] for rotation a
height adjustment could also be made thus making the device more
versatile” (final rejection, page 3).
The appellant’s broadly stated contention that “it
would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
combine these four references in the manner suggested by the
Examiner without having applicant’s own disclosure as a blueprint
to indicate how the various patents are to be combined” (main
brief, page 12, emphasis in the original) is not well taken. 2
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
2Although this argument was made with specific regard to
the standing rejection of claim 41, we presume that it was
intended to apply generally to both of the rejections on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007