Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 5
Application No. 08/728,909
It is axiomatic that 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, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488
U.S. 825 (1988). The Estevez structure has in common with the
appellant’s invention the feature that the pivot bar is mounted
on a set of hinge leaves at a point that is inwardly spaced
from the end of the first ramp so that the other hinge leaves,
which extend beyond the end of the adjacent second ramp,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007