Appeal No. 97-1085
Application 08/369,712
length limitation, for that requires the presence of more than
one merchandise peg. From our perspective, the only suggestion
for modifying the Fast systems in such a manner as to meet the
terms of claim 1 is found in the luxury of the hindsight accorded
one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. It is well
settled that the teachings of the prior art must suggest making
the modification which the examiner proposes. See In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
It is our conclusion that the teachings of either of the two
applied Fast references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obvious with respect to the subject matter of independent claim 1
or, it follows, of dependent claims 2 through 6.
Independent claim 7 contains the same two limitations
discussed above, and thus we reach the same result with respect
to claims 7 through 9.
The rejection is not sustained.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007