Appeal No. 98-2149 Page 7
Application No. 08/651,991
provide a factual basis for concluding that unidirectionally
oriented hook ends mounted on first and second segments in the
claimed manner would have been obvious.
The examiner's reliance upon the decision in In re
Japikse, supra, is misplaced inasmuch as, in the facts of that
particular case, the court found that the mere shifting of a
part to a different position did not result in a device which
operated any differently than the prior art. Here, however,
not only is more than mere "shifting" involved, but the
appellant's device clearly overcomes the described deficiencies
of the prior art.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, the examiner has
additionally noted that blade-like tools such as screwdrivers
are commonly used to pry open a variety of objects. However,
the mere fact that this might generally speaking be the case,
does not provide a sufficient factual basis for concluding that
the claimed method (which requires unfastening the above-noted
first and second segments with unidirectionally oriented hook
ends) would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103. See In re GPAC Inc, 57 F.3d 1573, 1582, 35 USPQ2d 1116,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007