Appeal No. 95-4371
Application No. 08/064,440
flight so as to be clamped between plate 2 and structural
members 1.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s position (see page 6
of the answer) that, in substance, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to substitute Bogomazov’s
clamping arrangement for Feighofen’s belt fastening structure
simply because the applied references are concerned with
devices for connecting the ends of a belt together. There is
nothing in the prior art to suggest such a complete
reconstruction of Feighofen’s connector. Indeed, the only way
the examiner could have arrived at his conclusion of
obviousness is through hindsight based on appellant’s
teachings. Hindsight analysis, however, is clearly improper.
In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 443, 230 USPQ 313, 316 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed with respect to claims 1, 3 though 5, 7, 12, 13 and
15, but is reversed with respect to claims 6, 9, 17, 20, 25,
26 and 28.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007