Appeal No. 97-3297
Application 08/390,973
and sets forth two alternative theories. The first is that the
term “integral” is “sufficiently broad to embrace constructions
united by such means as fastening and welding” (Answer, page 5).
This fails at the outset, however, for it is clear that in Nix
“such means as fastening and welding” have not been disclosed or
taught. The second theory is stated as follows:
Once the lever and bushing are connected they
perform the exact same function as
applicant’s [sic] claimed invention and
therefore, creating an integral, one piece
lever and bushing is an obvious modification.
Essentially, it is the examiner’s position here that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious
to so modify the Nix device. In the absence of evidence or
compelling argument in support thereof, however, we are not
persuaded that this would have been the case. 2
2The 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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007