Appeal No. 98-1291
Application No. 08/586,524
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, 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, 1439 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). Claim 6, which depends
from claim 1, stands rejected as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Koch and Chereda. We have pointed out
above the shortcomings in Koch with regard to the subject
matter recited in claim 1. Claim 6 adds to claim 1 the
requirement that there be a horizontal elongate second frame
member at a location approximately midway between opposite
ends of the first frame member, and that the second wheel
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007