Appeal No. 97-4455
Application 08/616,605
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully assessed the
claims, the prior art applied against the claims, and the respective views of the examiner and the
appellant as set forth in the Answer and the Brief. As a result of our review, we have determined that
neither of the rejections should be sustained. Our reasoning in support of this conclusion follows.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior
art reference or to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte
Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must
stem from some teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for
example, Uniroyal ,Inc. V. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1052
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The objective of the appellant’s invention is to provide an improved vehicle airbag that is so
shaped as to offer additional cushioning between the occupant and the “A” pillar of the vehicle when
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007