Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
Tanaka uses protrusion 20a1 to restrict the guard panel
only when the guard panel is open. In the closed position,
Tanaka elastically deforms the guard panel in place. Column 5,
line 62 through column 6, line 42. The examiner identifies no
suggestion in the prior art to alter Tanaka’s arrangement in the
recited manner.
Tanaka’s side arm portion 17b climbs protrusion 20a1.
Tanaka does this intentionally in order to maintain stably the
guard member’s position. Column 6, lines 30-42. This is in
contradistinction to the recited arrangement in which a gap
receives a protruding rib. Whereas Tanaka climbs over a
protrusion and presumably deforms the guard panel in the process,
appellants instead receive the protrusion in a mating gap. The
examiner offers no motivation for changing Tanaka’s climbing
arrangement to appellant’s mating arrangement. Eggebeen’s tongue
72 does not conform in size and shape to groove 74 and is not
used for a rotatable guard plate. Column 4, lines 45-68.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by 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). In the present case, as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007