Appeal No. 98-1239
Application No. 08/742,372
directed to a spring hanger assembly for supporting a portion
of a pipe, line, would have commended itself to the attention
of one of ordinary skill in the art of flexible couplings, we
cannot agree that there is any suggestion to combine the
teachings of Louette and Davidson in the manner proposed.
The mere fact that the addition of a circumferential groove
to the joint of Louette
would prevent Louette's metal retainer from coming off, and
thus result in a safer assembly, does not serve as a proper
motivation to combine the teachings of Louette and Davidson
as the examiner apparently believes. Instead, it is well
settled that it is the teachings of the prior art taken as a
whole which must provide the motivation or suggestion to
combine the references. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and Uniroyal,
Tnc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Cozp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d
1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Davidson, as we have noted above, is directed to a spring
hanger assembly for supporting a portion of a pipe line.
Included in this hanger assembly is a flat lower plate 14
that (1) retains a spring 16 within a cylindrical housing 10
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007