Appeal No. 97-4212
Application No. 08/630,031
system. However, there is no evidence to support this
conclusion.
The major argument advanced by the appellants is that
there is no suggestion to combine the references in such a
manner as to render the subject matter of the claim obvious.
We agree. 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). In the present situation, the problem of absorbing
impact already has been recognized and solved by Enomoto by
the use of an aluminum box extrusion having laterally oriented
inner walls. We therefore fail to perceive any teaching,
suggestion or incentive which would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to provide the Enomoto bumper beam with an
additional means for absorbing impact, such as that disclosed
by Killea. Moreover, even considering, arguendo, that
suggestion exists to add the reinforcing plate behind the
bumper beam, it is our opinion that it would not extend to
rigidly securing that plate to the bumper beam, in view of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007