Appeal No. 95-3237
Application 08/154,721
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior
art suggested the desirability of the modification." In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14
(Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We find that neither Hall nor Bogdanow suggests or
teaches a saddle being offset at a downward tilting angle from
the perpendicular to the central axis or a bolt extending through
and being held by the body upon which a keeper is movable along a
track in which the bolt defines the angle of tilt for the saddle
relative to the longitudinal central axis. Our reviewing court
requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Knapp-Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 232, 132 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA
1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA
1966). Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed invention by teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007