Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 17
Application No. 08/442,816
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 4-5) that it would
have been an obvious exchange of known equivalents to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify the locking device and engaging notches of Damon
with a locking mechanism and engaging notches like that taught
by Johnson. We agree. In addition, apparently with respect
to claims 37 and 38, the examiner also determined that plastic
coating 40 of Johnson was a "bubble wrap" material and that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
place the plastic coating 40 of Johnson over all lock
portions, including the lock housing, to provide a non-
abrasive surface. We do not agree.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 16-20) that there is no
suggestion or motivation to modify Damon by the teachings of
Johnson absent impermissible hindsight. We do not agree.
Initially we note that while there must be some teaching,
reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine existing elements
to produce the claimed device, it is not necessary that the
cited references or prior art specifically suggest making the
combination (see B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Systems
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007