Appeal No. 98-1530
Application No. 08/492,590
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 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, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988).
The claims before us are directed to an invention that
comprises an aerial apparatus having a longitudinal axis, a
sheave, and a winch line passing over the sheave. The three
independent claims also require, as expressed in the language
of claim 1,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007