Appeal No. 98-2149 Page 6
Application No. 08/651,991
the orientation of the hook ends and the placement of the
segments "could readily be" determined by routine
experimentation based on the direction of applied forces and
magnitude of adhesion desired. We must point out, however,
that obviousness under § 103 is a legal conclusion based on
factual evidence (see In re Fine, supra,) and the mere fact
that the prior art could be modified would not have made the
modifications obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification (see, e.g., In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Robinson
shows nothing more than what the appellant on pages 2 and 3 of
the specification has admitted to be old in the art. That is,
Robinson simply shows a replaceable wear cap that is attached
to a cushioning pad by means of a hook and loop-type fastener
42. There is no disclosure therein of unidirectionally
oriented hook ends, much less unidirectionally oriented hook
ends that are mounted on first and second segments in such a
manner that the direction of orientation of the hook ends of
the respective segments diverge at a predetermined angle
relative to one another as claimed. Thus, Robinson does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007