Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
that one of ordinary skill in this art would understand as a
matter of common knowledge and common sense that, in order for
Hutchison’s device to function in its intended manner as a
“DISPLAY HOOK FOR PEGBOARD” as set forth in the title, the split
projections would indeed pass through the holes in the pegboard.
As to the appellants’ contention that Schuplin merely
discloses a separate fastener which is not intended to be formed
with any other member, we point out that in the embodiment of
Figs. 10-13, Schuplin clearly shows his fasteners being
integrally formed with a strap-type holder 52.
It is also the appellants’ contention that there is no
suggestion to combine the teachings of Hutchison and Schuplin in
the manner proposed by the examiner. This, according to the
appellants, is especially the case because:
Hutchison’s article of design is a passive device.
There is no indication of a need for a Schuplin-type
device in Hutchison. Since the weight of an object on
the arm of the Hutchison device will aid in forcing the
lower fastener more firmly against the perfboard, there
would be no incentive to look elsewhere to replace
Hutchison’s lower fastener with something else, let
alone to look to a field of art in which the main
concentration of function is to connect one object to
another (a cable strap 46 or 52 in Schuplin, for
example). [Brief, page 17.]
We cannot agree. While there must be some teaching, reason,
suggestion, or motivation to combine existing elements to produce
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007