Appeal No. 98-2779
Application 08/496,604
Appellant’s arguments against the use of the diamond grid
gripping surfaces of Schlein in the clamp of Kurwa, in our
opinion, are misplaced. The arguments in the brief (page 6)
and reply brief seem to seek some express teaching in either
Kurwa or Schlein that the gripping surfaces of the jaws in
Kurwa are inadequate before a substitution of the specific
form of gripping surfaces in Schlein can be made for the
serrations of Kurwa. We know of no such requirement. In this
regard, we note that where two known alternatives are
interchangeable for their desired function, an express
suggestion of the desirability of the substitution of one for
the other is not needed to render such substitution obvious.
See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA
1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567, 152 USPQ 618, 619
(CCPA 1967).
While we have fully considered the arguments advanced by
appellant, we are not convinced thereby that the examiner's
conclusion of obviousness as it applies to claim 1 on appeal
is in error. Although appellant points to alleged
distinctions between the prior art and the invention of claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007