Appeal No. 1996-3918
Application No. 08/232,351
indeed extends between, and is connected to, the slides 52,54
(see, e.g., Fig. 1).
The appellant additionally argues that the prior art has
been available for "a substantial period of time" and this is
an indication of nonobviousness. We observe, however, that a
mere 21 months separates the filing date (i.e., March 15,
1985) of Cramblett and the issue date (i.e., July 26, 1983) of
White. In any event, the mere age of the references is not
persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their
teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of
the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem.
See, e.g., In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332,
335 (CCPA 1977).
The appellant also contends that the claimed invention is
directed to an improvement in a "crowded art" and,
accordingly, even a small improvement should be patentable.
Not only is there no evidence of record to support the
contention that this is a crowded art but, even if there were,
the criterion on which patentability must be resolved is
obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007