Appeal No. 97-2227
Application 08/254,978
well settled that in order to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness the prior art teachings must be sufficient to
suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art making the
modification needed to arrive at the claimed invention. See,
e.g., In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Here, there is absolutely no suggestion whatso-
ever in Atfield for making the modification which the examiner
seeks to dismiss as “obvious.”
With respect to independent claim 9, the examiner con-
tends that Atfield in Fig. 1 clearly shows a “torsion spring
(87)” (answer, page 9). We have carefully reviewed the teach-
ings of Atfield but find no mention whatsoever of a “torsion
spring.” As to the examiner’s reliance on Atfield’s Fig. 1,
the spring depicted therein appears to be a coil spring, not a
torsion spring. In any event, claim 9 expressly requires a
torsion bar having ends, with one end being secured to disen-
gage means and means for applying rotary torque to the other
end. There is nothing in Atfield which would even remotely
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007