Appeal No. 98-1531 Page 7
Application No. 08/371,511
We therefore fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or
incentive in either reference which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Serber seat by
attaching the seat belt to the seat assembly rather than to
other parts of the vehicle, and to locate the mounting point
above the horizontal point where the seatpan and the seat back
meet, rather then on the floor of the vehicle. The mere fact
that the prior art structure could be modified does not make
such a modification obvious absent some suggestion of the
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221
USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that to be lacking here.
From our perspective, the only suggestion for making the
proposed modification is found in the luxury of the hindsight
accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure.
This, of course, is not a proper basis for establishing
obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The teachings of the applied prior art fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter recited in claim 1. We therefore will not sustain the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007