Appeal No. 99-0622 Page 9
Application No. 08/637,717
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in the factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 177-78 (CCPA 1967). Moreover, the mere fact that
the prior art could be so modified would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. See In re Mills, 916 F.2d
680, 682, 16 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The device of Leach is intended for use in restraining a
small child, either in an ambulatory state or seated in a
grocery cart or chair (column 1, lines 7 through 13). As the
device would not be expected to be subjected to forces even
approaching 2.5 kN in either of these applications, it is not
apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to provide connections, such as the stitches (41) or
the buckle (30), to withstand forces in excess of
approximately 2.5 kN.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007