Appeal No. 96-3379
Application 08/248,775
device to enable downward movement after a fall. The fact that
the prior art could be modified in the manner suggested by the
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, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
We find nothing in the Bernstein, Green or Lappe references
which would supply the deficiencies noted with regard to the
combination of Weiner in view of SKY GENIE® and either Vinai or
the disclosed conventional harness.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
made, and the rejections will not be sustained.3
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 37, 45 to 50
and 71 is reversed.
REVERSED
There being no prima facie case of obviousness, it is unnecessary to3
consider the declaration of Stefan D. Bright under 37 CFR 1.132 (Paper No. 7,
filed May 25, 1995).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007