Appeal No. 96-3035
Application 07/945,430
as articulated in the rejection. However, it is clear to us,
from a combined assessment of the applied prior art teachings,
that the proposed alterations would not only significantly modify
the device of Goncalves but would require motivation from appel-
lants’ own teaching (impermissible hindsight) to make same. In
other words, it is our opinion that the applied art itself would
not have provided a suggestion for the selective and significant
modification of the Goncalves device. In particular, we note
that with the device of Goncalves, the patentee expressly calls
for a tubular element (body 104) open at both ends (translation,
page 13). As readily perceived from the Goncalves document
(translation, pages 15 and 16), the reason for a tubular element
is that the wall 110 of sheath 102 is intended to rest on the
upper edge 120 of the body 104 while the plate 128 through its
outer portion 129 is intended to be stopped against the set-back
121 of the body 104 (Figure 3). In light of the above, it is
apparent to us that the proposed addition of a closed bottom tube
for the device of Goncalves would clearly defeat the patentee’s
intended assembly procedure for the device. For the above
reasons, we determine that the applied prior art evidence does
not establish a prima facie case of obviousness relative to the
claimed invention. Under this circumstance, it follows that we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007