Appeal No. 99-0257 Page 7
Application No. 08/728,909
prior art suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
1984). It is our view that even assuming, arguendo, that it
would have been obvious to provide the Estevez ramp system with
end to end longitudinal strengthening bars, it would not have
been obvious to modify Estevez in such a manner as to met the
terms of claim 10. In particular, we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive in either of the references
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the functions of the hinge leaves of Estevez and the
support bars of Goesser into a single element, and to locate
one of the sets of pivot bar receiving apertures “between” the
ends of the support bars rather then “directly adjacent” the
ends, as is taught by Estevez. From our perspective, the only
suggestion for combining these two references in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of the
hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellant’s
disclosure. This, of course, is impermissible. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007