Appeal No. 98-0806
Application No. 08/693,588
be used as desired. Applying the test for obviousness as set 2
forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981), we are convinced that the combined teachings of
Fritzberg and Bellows would have fairly suggested to one of
ordinary skill in this art to modify Fritzberg's clip 17
(having a coiled portion with an axial extent) to be of a
substantially planar structure in view of the teachings of
Bellows.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fritzberg in view of Bellows.
Turning to the rejection of claims 6 and 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritzberg in view
of Bellows and McMichael, the examiner is of the opinion that
it would further have been obvious to tie the core of
2The test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007