Appeal No. 96-2862
Application No. 08/030,704
the claimed device (see ACS Hospital Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore
Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
1984)), it not necessary that the cited references or prior art
specifically suggest making the combination (B.F. Goodrich Co.
V. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d
1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401,
1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Rather the test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981).
Here, Schuplin in column 1, lines 50-61, among the objects
of the invention states that it is desired to provide a fastener
that (1) is “of a simple, yet rugged, economic construction and
which may be quickly and easily assembled and disassembled with a
minimum of time and effort” and (2) which “provides optimum pull-
out resistance in the mounted secured position thereof.” In our
view, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found it
obvious to substitute in Hutchison for his split projection-type
fastener, the fastener 58, 60 disclosed by Schuplin in order to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007