Appeal No. 97-2535
Application 08/129,108
detachable to provide for [the] replacement of damaged parts without having to replace the entire pallet
container" (answer, page 7). This rejection is not sustainable.
It is well established patent law that there must be some teaching, suggestion or inference in the
prior art as a whole or some knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modification needed to arrive at the claimed
invention. See, inter alia, In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed Cir. 1988)
and Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.
1988). See also In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the prior art
must provide one of ordinary skill in the art with the motivation to make the modification needed to
arrive at the claimed invention).
In the present case, appealed claim 9 expressly requires that the mesh cage be permanently
attached to the floor plate. In contrast, both Marques and Rudko suggest the concept of detachably
connecting vertical rods to a floor plate. Thus, even if the teachings of Marques and Rudko would have
made it obvious to detachably connect the vertical rods of Schutz's cage to the floor plate for purpose
stated by the examiner, the result would not arrive at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007