Appeal No. 97-0933
Application No. 08/200,118
tilted at the desired angle with respect to the component to
which it is attached by the bolt.
Claim 1 requires a bolt with an offset, whereas Slamin
discloses a bolt with an angle. The reference therefore fails
to anticipate the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we
will not sustain this rejection.
The Rejections Under Section 103
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). However, the mere fact that the prior
art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The initial burden
of establishing a basis for denying patentability to a claimed
invention rests with the examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007