Appeal No. 97-4158
Application No. 08/515,218
upper surface of the body.” We observe in passing that Bruder
describes his handle (lid) 6 as “entrapping” the test subject
when in the lowered position. It would be speculation,
however, to conclude that handle 6 applies a retention force
to the upper surface of the test subject, for the reference
does not so state, and the common definition of the word does
not support such a conclusion.2
The examiner looks to Jarvela for its teaching of
pressing down on the top of an electronic module with a non-
resilient element, and to Kishi and Scheingold for theirs of
pressing downwardly on a part with a resilient or spring
structure, from which he concludes it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a resilient spring
to the inside of the Bruder handle (lid) 6. 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). Here, we fail to
2To entrap is to catch in or as if in a trap. Mirriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page
387.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007