Appeal No. 97-4179
Application 08/510,526
According to the examiner:
Schatz et al. discloses a device for
measuring head turn, tilt, and bend, a
horizontal protractor (Fig. 2), and a
vertical protractor (Figs. 3,4). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to design a device combining both the
vertical and horizontal protractors since
this would reduce the time required to take
the measurements and since this would provide
for a more efficient device. It is noted by
the examiner that the horizontal protractor
is able to be positioned adjacent the
vertical protractor means and positioned in a
manner similar to that shown in Figs. 2-4 [of
the appellants' device]. This would position
the two protractor means at approximately
right angles. Also, it would have been
obvious to place the protractors in an
adjacent relationship at right angles in view
of Figs. 2-4. [Answer, page 3.]
We will not support the examiner's position. The mere fact
that designing a device combining both vertical and horizontal
protractors would reduce the time of making measurements and be
more efficient, does not serve as a proper motivation for the
proposed modifications as the examiner apparently believes.
Obviousness under § 103 is a legal conclusion based on factual
evidence (In re Fine, supra) and it is 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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007