Appeal No. 98-1204
Application No. 08/609,551
Lloyd discloses a wire mesh hammock having a spreader bar
(9) that functions to “extend the hammock at each end” (page
2, line 29). Each is described as “a flexible spreader,
preferably a flat spring or steel strip,” which is “secured to
the edges of the hammock” by clips (page 2, line 32 et seq.).
As shown in Figure 1 of the Lloyd drawings, the spreader bar
is curved “horizontally and longitudinally,” as is required by
this claim. 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 perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive in the references cited
against the claim which would have led one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the Nickerson spreader bars in the manner
proposed by the examiner, inasmuch as the function of
extending the hammock at each end already is being performed
by Nickerson’s vertically curved spreader bars. Our reviewing
court stated in In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007